"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 07:40:32 +0100 (GMT+01:00), jim k wrote:

T i m Wrote in message:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.

Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?

Cheers, T i m

Steady on old boy :-)

;-)

Well ... what we do know is what happens when a member of the EU.

What we don't fully know is what will happen if we are not.

What those who seem to study such things for a living seem to be
suggesting though is were doing fine (thanks) and leaving is unlikely
to change most of the points people voted on for the better (as they
would see it).

It seems we *might* be able to reach other markets but they may not
want to reach out to us like they did when we were part of the EU.

you are looking at this the wrong way

No country is going to treat us differently wrt to day to day trading, part
of the EU or not.

They have things to sell (and things that they want to buy, that we sell).
They aren't going to say "Oh we wont buy your Welsh lamb because you aren't
part of the EU" or "we aren't going to sell our oranges to you because you
aren't part of the EU", it would be a nonsense.

The argument is, because we aren't part of the EU it is too much effort for
them to negotiate with us over a trade deal to make that trade easier (and
hopefully increase it) because as a much smaller country, the rewards for
making that deal would be smaller, so they wont even try

But that misses the point that getting a deal with the EU is extraordinarily
difficult due to the number of vested interest that it has to protect (and
the bloody mindedness of some countries to compromise - exercise for the
reader here).

It much easier to get a deal with the UK, we have fewer industries to
protect that developing countries are likely to compete in and the UK will
compromise to achieve a quicker deal.

You would be a dumb country indeed not to look at this option out of spite,
IMHO

tim

On 02/07/2016 08:51, Brian Gaff wrote:
From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does seem a bit of a
lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into a very low sun does this mean
it would drive into anything?

Drivers get dazzled more easily than cameras should.
The camera should have a higher dynamic range than the eye.

People need to get this in perspective, many drivers crash in the same
circumstances and that there was a human driver at the wheel who also
crashed the car not just the computer.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 09:06:18 +0000, Chris wrote:

You'd need your head examined to own one.

Which I gather is exactly what happened following the accident. ;-

I'll get me coat.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 10:15:04 +0100, T i m wrote:

leave the EU and then *at least* 10 years (the experts suggest

Oh, "experts" - ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 11:36:17 +0100, T i m wrote:

Well the certainly don't seem to have said anything of value so far. The
thing is, if it were 'so obvious' leaving the EU was such a 'good thing'
then I'm guessing all the experts across all fields ...

LOL! You and your flipping "experts" again! Are you not capable of
critical thinking for yourself? Clearly not!

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 09:59:35 +0100, T i m wrote:

p.s. If anyone cares to counter *with quantifiable fact* any of the
points raised on either of the videos linked on the OP I'm all ears.

Why bother? You are clearly in denial and don't want the truth. You can't
face the fact that it's OVER, mate! OVER! Time to move on....

On 02/07/16 09:31, Nightjar wrote:
On 01-Jul-16 8:15 PM, T i m wrote:
....
But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(
....

If I am totally honest about the point, the EU rules would only have
affected foreign trailers. Side bars for all new build UK trailers
appeared in the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations - a couple of
years before the EU Directive.


Yeah, the EU is like the MD I handed over my company to after I sold it.

Two of us webt on to close te single biggest deal we had ever done,
worth a shade under half a million. The MD was delighted' that's the
sort of thing may company does' she said.

I pointed out to her that she had not even been aware of the deal.

"But it happened on my watch" she said.

--------------------------------
You can see Adrian sitting on a train and saying :

"The EU is necessary to keep the elephants down"
"What elephants?"
"Exactly: That's how GOOD THE EU IS".

Sigh.

--
No Apple devices were knowingly used in the preparation of this post.

On 02/07/16 11:59, tim... wrote:

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 07:40:32 +0100 (GMT+01:00), jim k wrote:

T i m Wrote in message:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts
about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.

Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?

Cheers, T i m

Steady on old boy :-)

;-)

Well ... what we do know is what happens when a member of the EU.

What we don't fully know is what will happen if we are not.

What those who seem to study such things for a living seem to be
suggesting though is were doing fine (thanks) and leaving is unlikely
to change most of the points people voted on for the better (as they
would see it).

It seems we *might* be able to reach other markets but they may not
want to reach out to us like they did when we were part of the EU.

you are looking at this the wrong way

No country is going to treat us differently wrt to day to day trading,
part of the EU or not.

They have things to sell (and things that they want to buy, that we
sell). They aren't going to say "Oh we wont buy your Welsh lamb because
you aren't part of the EU" or "we aren't going to sell our oranges to
you because you aren't part of the EU", it would be a nonsense.

The argument is, because we aren't part of the EU it is too much effort
for them to negotiate with us over a trade deal to make that trade
easier (and hopefully increase it) because as a much smaller country,
the rewards for making that deal would be smaller, so they wont even try

But that misses the point that getting a deal with the EU is
extraordinarily difficult due to the number of vested interest that it
has to protect (and the bloody mindedness of some countries to
compromise - exercise for the reader here).

It much easier to get a deal with the UK, we have fewer industries to
protect that developing countries are likely to compete in and the UK
will compromise to achieve a quicker deal.

You would be a dumb country indeed not to look at this option out of
spite, IMHO


Yep. We will have cheap oranges from Israel and expensive ones from Spain.

(Unless that Nazi Corbyn gets elected).


tim







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

Al Capone

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 11:49:23 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

leave the EU and then *at least* 10 years (the experts suggest

Oh, "experts" - ROTFLMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gove? Is that you?

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 11:51:59 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

Well the certainly don't seem to have said anything of value so far.
The thing is, if it were 'so obvious' leaving the EU was such a 'good
thing' then I'm guessing all the experts across all fields ...

LOL! You and your flipping "experts" again! Are you not capable of
critical thinking for yourself? Clearly not!

Scoffing is the easy option when expertise (otherwise known as "facts"
and "reality") disagrees with your wishful thinking.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
The guy in the video conceded that there was some pretty
'unprofessional stuff done by both sides pre Referendum but that the
Brexit brigade stooped to some pretty low lows and the Leave published
some straight facts. The problem was the great unwashed weren't able
to differentiate between the two but the sensational 'we want
something better but we don't know what we are voting for will or
could ever deliver that' seemed to appeal and didn't appear bothered
by the risk (that they themselves will also 'enjoy').

The 'things can't possibly get worse' syndrome. Only to find out later
they can.

--
*7up is good for you, signed snow white*

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

dennis@home wrote:
On 02/07/2016 08:51, Brian Gaff wrote:
From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does seem a bit
of a
lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into a very low sun does
this mean
it would drive into anything?

Drivers get dazzled more easily than cameras should.
The camera should have a higher dynamic range than the eye.
No, the human eye has a much greater range. A dark adapted eye can
detect one photon. I don't know what the top end is, but all my CCTV
cameras can't take direct sun viewing.

On 02/07/2016 11:36, T i m wrote:

That's the problem with fanatics, they don't know when to stop and
they can't see the facts for the red mist. ;-(

TNP can see the facts, she doesn't care, harry can't see facts.

In article ,
tim... wrote:
But that misses the point that getting a deal with the EU is
extraordinarily difficult due to the number of vested interest that it
has to protect (and the bloody mindedness of some countries to
compromise - exercise for the reader here).

It much easier to get a deal with the UK, we have fewer industries to
protect that developing countries are likely to compete in and the UK
will compromise to achieve a quicker deal.

Can you give an example or two of a deal setup between countries which
hasn't taken many years to finalise?

It might be possible if neither country was in a deal with anyone else -
extremely unlikely. When it is, it's not only the deal between the UK and
that country that matter, but how it might effect any deals already in
existence.

So rather like being in the EU.

You make it sound like us leaving the EU has somehow reset the entire
world.

--
*If a pig loses its voice, is it disgruntled? *

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

On 02/07/16 13:30, Adrian wrote:
On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 11:51:59 +0000, Julian Barnes wrote:

Well the certainly don't seem to have said anything of value so far.
The thing is, if it were 'so obvious' leaving the EU was such a 'good
thing' then I'm guessing all the experts across all fields ...

LOL! You and your flipping "experts" again! Are you not capable of
critical thinking for yourself? Clearly not!

Scoffing is the easy option when expertise (otherwise known as "facts"
and "reality") disagrees with your wishful thinking.

Appeals to authority are the easiest way to back up and statement that
you cannot yourself argue for.


--
€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

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 11:51:59 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 11:36:17 +0100, T i m wrote:

Well the certainly don't seem to have said anything of value so far. The
thing is, if it were 'so obvious' leaving the EU was such a 'good thing'
then I'm guessing all the experts across all fields ...

LOL!

Some people are easily amused.

You and your flipping "experts" again!

They aren't 'mine', they (he) is an independent person who has been
involved in the very field we are discussing for many years. Can you
offer such credentials (or a quantifiable rebuttal to the facts
stated)?

No, I thought not.

Are you not capable of
critical thinking for yourself?

Yes, in that I can only correlate the *facts* that I am able to gather
and as yet I've seen *none* that even start to demonstrate how we will
be better off out of the EU.

Clearly not!

Well, given that you must have such information (or you wouldn't be
making such a stupid comment in public) I'd like to hear it please.

And I mean quantifiable and verifiable *facts*, not just what the
voices in your head (or the Sun) are telling you. ;-)

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 13:38:55 +0100, "Dave Plowman (News)"
wrote:

In article ,
T i m wrote:
The guy in the video conceded that there was some pretty
'unprofessional stuff done by both sides pre Referendum but that the
Brexit brigade stooped to some pretty low lows and the Leave published
some straight facts. The problem was the great unwashed weren't able
to differentiate between the two but the sensational 'we want
something better but we don't know what we are voting for will or
could ever deliver that' seemed to appeal and didn't appear bothered
by the risk (that they themselves will also 'enjoy').

The 'things can't possibly get worse' syndrome. Only to find out later
they can.

You would have though the phrase 'The grass is greener on the other
side' would have been a big clue for TNP off as it has the word
'green' in it (and we know how much that makes his blood boil).

After all, what's a few (tens of?) thousand deaths a year down to
pollution in our cities to him, as long as the bodies don't get in the
way of his crusade. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 13:50:00 +0100, dennis@home
wrote:

On 02/07/2016 11:36, T i m wrote:

That's the problem with fanatics, they don't know when to stop and
they can't see the facts for the red mist. ;-(

TNP can see the facts, she doesn't care,

So it seems, which surprises me, considering how good he normally is
at recycling other peoples data (Gridwatch).

harry can't see facts.

I think he (and a few neighbours and pilots) has been blinded by the
sun shining off his solar panels. ;-(

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 11:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 09:59:35 +0100, T i m wrote:

p.s. If anyone cares to counter *with quantifiable fact* any of the
points raised on either of the videos linked on the OP I'm all ears.

Why bother? You are clearly in denial and don't want the truth. You can't
face the fact that it's OVER, mate! OVER! Time to move on....

Hmmm, nothing to offer than attempted distraction. 'Typical'.

Cheers, T i m

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 15:24:26 +0100, T i m wrote:

On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 11:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 09:59:35 +0100, T i m wrote:

p.s. If anyone cares to counter *with quantifiable fact* any of the
points raised on either of the videos linked on the OP I'm all ears.

Why bother? You are clearly in denial and don't want the truth. You
can't face the fact that it's OVER, mate! OVER! Time to move on....

Hmmm, nothing to offer than attempted distraction. 'Typical'.

Cheers, T i m

It's over and done. You lost. Tough tits. :-D

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 02-Jul-16 9:56 AM, Richard wrote:
"Nightjar" wrote in message
...

On 01-Jul-16 8:15 PM, T i m wrote:
...
But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(
...

If I am totally honest about the point, the EU rules would only have
affected foreign trailers. Side bars for all new build UK trailers
appeared in the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations - a couple of
years before the EU Directive.

Refreshing.

Not particularly unusual. Quite a few 'EU' laws are based upon prior UK
practice, from the Common Fisheries Policy, to the Medical Devices
Directive. Whatever the propaganda, the EU doesn't just sit down and think
up regulations for the sake of it. They normally take examples of the best
practice in a particular field in from member states, then extend those
practices to all the states.

I meant the being totally honest bit.

In article ,
T i m wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 11:53:58 -0000 (UTC), Julian Barnes
wrote:

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 09:59:35 +0100, T i m wrote:

p.s. If anyone cares to counter *with quantifiable fact* any of the
points raised on either of the videos linked on the OP I'm all ears.

Why bother? You are clearly in denial and don't want the truth. You
can't face the fact that it's OVER, mate! OVER! Time to move on....

Hmmm, nothing to offer than attempted distraction. 'Typical'.

If only it were over. Instead of not even started yet.

--
*Some days we are the flies; some days we are the windscreen.*

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

On 02/07/2016 13:48, Capitol wrote:
dennis@home wrote:
On 02/07/2016 08:51, Brian Gaff wrote:
From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does seem a bit
of a
lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into a very low sun does
this mean
it would drive into anything?

Drivers get dazzled more easily than cameras should.
The camera should have a higher dynamic range than the eye.
No, the human eye has a much greater range. A dark adapted eye can
detect one photon. I don't know what the top end is, but all my CCTV
cameras can't take direct sun viewing.

Your cameras can't, not all cameras can't!

En el artículo , Cursitor Doom
escribió:

It's over and done. You lost. Tough tits. :-D


D i m is ... dim.

I do hope discussion in here isn't gonna be coloured by Brexit/Bremain
argument for much longer and we can get back to some semblance of
normality, such as discussing the merits of angle grinders.

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

alan_m wrote
polygonum wrote
Nightjar wrote
harry wrote

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autop...kw MDAzODIwS0

Over here, under EU regulations, the trailer would have had under-run
side bars, which the car's radar would have detected.

The reports I have read all make it sound as if the Tesla uses optical
wavelengths. It surprised me - not that they use optical at all, but that
they don't also use some sort of more-or-less microwave radar and,
possibly infra-red as well.

From what I've read they do have radar and even in the absence of
under-run bars perhaps it should have detected the rear axle.

Trouble with the rear axle with the trailer across the lanes
at right angles is that it's hard to distinguish that from a
stationary car coming the other way.

Perhaps the trailer did have a under-run bar covered with a aerodynamic
cowling that deflected/absorbed the radar beam in the same way as a
stealth fighter?

Very unlikely indeed. Stealth doesnt work like that.

Michael Chare wrote
Cursitor Doom wrote
harry wrote

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/tesla-autopilot-death-......[...]

The real dealbreaker for me preventing me buying a new car is the extent
to which they've become computerised. Some of these cars, even luxury
Mercedes models have been hacked into remotely and taken over by the
hacker. I find that a bit scary, even if the risk of it happening is low,
the consequences could be very nasty.

But net banking is very secure, no reason why cars can't be too.

Clearly heavy aircraft are much more computer controlled
than cars and we haven't seen any of them hacked in flight
etc and there is clearly a lot more to be gained by doing that.

I wonder if it would be feasible to take a brand new car and rip out all
the control systems that enable it to be remotely taken over, and ensure
100% that it can never happen. I guess the biggest hurdle would be
devising a bespoke vehicle management unit from scratch. This would be
relatively simple for a 20 year old vehicle, perhaps, but what about one
just off a production line?

I would think very difficult. On my 13 year old car even the door locks
and electric windows are driven by a communication system linked to the
central management computer.

At intermittent fault that occasionally make the car go into limp home
mode can be impossible to cure. If you take the car to the garage they
just say they can not determine the fault.

Not necessarily. Any well designed system will record what
sensor input got it to go into limp home mode and so it
isn't hard to replace that sensor or the connection to it etc.

T i m wrote
wrote
T i m wrote

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.

Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?

Trivially easy. No one but a complete loon like Bignell
actually claims that Britain leaving the EU will destroy Britain.

It is indeed typical bremain bull/lies.

Mike Tomlinson wrote:
En el , Cursitor Doom
escribió:


It's over and done. You lost. Tough tits. :-D


D i m is ... dim.

I do hope discussion in here isn't gonna be coloured by Brexit/Bremain
argument for much longer and we can get back to some semblance of
normality, such as discussing the merits of angle grinders.


Sincerely agreed.

"T i m" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 09:54:39 +0100, "Richard"
wrote:

snip


I really really hope my worst fears don't come true but even if we
don't I don't think it's going to be 'good' for a long long time (if
ever).



This thread illustrates quite well the result of putting too much faith in
a
system which is supposed to be better than the individual. Hopping into
your
tesla, hitting go and sitting comfortably on your arse doing nothing to
control your destiny is like putting your trust in the EU.


Except the EU is *nothing* like that.

Anyone relying 100% on something whilst traveling at speed and
relying on some pretty new technology at that, is more like assuming
that *Leaving* the EU is also 'safe' when it's mostly unknown, like
driving blind.

And by 'unknown' I mean we know what the chances are any of what the
minority of the population voted for (Brexiteers) won't come true and
the chances on what a similar number of people voted for (and feared),
will.

If nothing else it's going to take 2+ years of uncertainty to just
leave the EU and then *at least* 10 years (the experts suggest and
based on the progress of other countries trying similar now and in the
past) to negotiate trade deals with other countries whilst hoping we
can still sell stuff via the WTO rules (at worse deals).

No hope involved at all given that all of the USA, Japan, China, India,
Korea,
Australia, Canada etc etc etc have all been doing that fine for years now.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 01/07/2016 21:26, T i m wrote:
On Fri, 1 Jul 2016 12:54:28 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

On Friday, 1 July 2016 20:15:04 UTC+1, T i m wrote:

I think we have seen from the recent EURef facts' post that TNP has
far from a real world / fact based gasp on many things he posts about.

But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(

Was it really worth (potentially) destroying this country for just a

typical bremain bull.

Care to unequivocally counter any of his points?

Cheers, T i m


They can't and they won't.

Remember the point about attacking the talker and not the argument, that
has been what they have been doing in this newsgroup for months and it
will continue as they have nothing else.

They even have the balls to call the opposition project fear when that is
exactly what they do.

Its not over even if we leave, TNP and harry aren't content with us
leaving the EU they still have an agenda to deal with others they don't
like.

But have no capacity to do that.

On Sat, 02 Jul 2016 17:08:01 +0100, Mike Tomlinson wrote:

En el artÃ*culo , Cursitor Doom
escribió:

It's over and done. You lost. Tough tits. :-D


D i m is ... dim.

I do hope discussion in here isn't gonna be coloured by Brexit/Bremain
argument for much longer and we can get back to some semblance of
normality, such as discussing the merits of angle grinders.

I fully agree with that sentiment. It just seems that some people here
HATE democracy so much they want to impose their own minority view over
everybody else because they believe for some obscure reason that they're
smarter and better educated than those who voted Leave.

On 02/07/2016 8:51 AM, Brian Gaff wrote:
From what I heard on the radio it was dazzled, which does seem a bit of a
lame excuse to me. If it had been driving into a very low sun does this mean
it would drive into anything?

As has been said, headlights can dazzle, they even dazzle me even though I
see no actual imagery in my eyes.
I was also interested to read that some new models of truck are starting to
use composite materials instead of metal to keep the weight of the trailers
down. If these cars really do rely on a radar, this surely would not be a
good idea, as it probably would not see that either.
I'm eagerly waiting for these vehicles to be usable by the blind, but at
the moment I think they are only allowed if a qualified driver is on board
to take over if they fail. In the case of this accident it sounds like there
would not have been time to take over.
There is bloke across the road with one of these Teslas in his driveway
sometimes. it apparently belongs to a relative, but the majority of the
auto features have to be off on public roads in the UK apparently as they
are not yet licence.
Seems that this bloke has more money than sense.
Brian



Brian, I have always relied on those 'friends' who cannot wait for new
tech so they can buy in.

I much prefer the views and experiences of the ordinary person :-)

On 02-Jul-16 10:04 AM, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 09:31:08 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 01-Jul-16 8:15 PM, T i m wrote:
...
But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(
...

If I am totally honest about the point, the EU rules would only have
affected foreign trailers. Side bars for all new build UK trailers
appeared in the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations - a couple of
years before the EU Directive.

There are, of course, a lot of foreign trailers on our roads today. On
any trip out going further than the shops, I can expect to see at least
one Dutch lorry delivering to florists or nurseries and probably half a
dozen other EU lorries, usually German or Polish, with the occasional
Norbert Dentressangle (French) or Waberer's (Hungarian).


Ok, but the spirit of the general point still stands. There are many
perfectly sensible safety improvements have been implemented *EU wide*
because all 28 states sanctioned them (for the benefit for the vast
majority).

That, of course, is one of the things the EU regulates, to ensure
conformity across the member states - industrial and product safety. The
other main areas relate to trade between the states, covering
agriculture, industry and commerce. In other areas, such as crime,
health or traffic, the individual states are largely left to their own
devices.

So, even if it was first raised in France or Germany, we would have
had to accept it before it could have been implemented and would in
turn benefit from it in this country or traveling or working within
the EU.

The EU generally does not create legislation in a vacuum. Having decided
upon a course of action, it looks to see whether any of the member
states have already addressed the issue and then cherry picks the best
ideas. As we are really quite good at generating legislation of our own,
it is inevitable that we have influenced a number of pieces of EU
legislation.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 09:24:53 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 02-Jul-16 10:04 AM, T i m wrote:
On Sat, 2 Jul 2016 09:31:08 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

On 01-Jul-16 8:15 PM, T i m wrote:
...
But of course he *would* argue the point (EU influenced safety)
because he does so with *anything* that counters his fanatical
Brexit-at-any-cost suicide bomber crusade. ;-(
...

If I am totally honest about the point, the EU rules would only have
affected foreign trailers. Side bars for all new build UK trailers
appeared in the 1986 Construction and Use Regulations - a couple of
years before the EU Directive.

There are, of course, a lot of foreign trailers on our roads today. On
any trip out going further than the shops, I can expect to see at least
one Dutch lorry delivering to florists or nurseries and probably half a
dozen other EU lorries, usually German or Polish, with the occasional
Norbert Dentressangle (French) or Waberer's (Hungarian).

Agreed. I also see them pretty regularly and am out in all weathers
turning them round when they blindly follow their GPS's up to the dead
end outside here. ;-(


Ok, but the spirit of the general point still stands. There are many
perfectly sensible safety improvements have been implemented *EU wide*
because all 28 states sanctioned them (for the benefit for the vast
majority).

That, of course, is one of the things the EU regulates, to ensure
conformity across the member states - industrial and product safety. The
other main areas relate to trade between the states, covering
agriculture, industry and commerce.

Yes, and all those points are often conveniently forgotten by those
blindly trying to go ahead on just their single 'crusade'. ;-(

In other areas, such as crime,
health or traffic, the individual states are largely left to their own
devices.

We also have the advantages of 'cross border' police to be able to
extradite terrorists and the like.

So, even if it was first raised in France or Germany, we would have
had to accept it before it could have been implemented and would in
turn benefit from it in this country or traveling or working within
the EU.

The EU generally does not create legislation in a vacuum.

Ding. ;-)

Having decided
upon a course of action,

I'm not sure 'it' ever comes up with anything does it? We (the member
states) request something *of* the EU (because in turn, enough of our
population have requested it) and it flows back out from there?

it looks to see whether any of the member
states have already addressed the issue and then cherry picks the best
ideas.

Sure, once the ball is rolling etc.

As we are really quite good at generating legislation of our own,
it is inevitable that we have influenced a number of pieces of EU
legislation.

Exactly (and apparently *we* have influenced the vast majority).
That's why unpicking all the EU legislation from the UK stuff is going
to be such a massive task (and yet another burden and COST, just when
we didn't need it). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I wonder how many of what are seen as 'EU' rules were instigated
by us in the first place? I know when my Dad used to attend British
Standard meetings in Europe on any new rules and regs re Industrial
Lifting and Handling equipment, 'some' of the participant countries
appeared less than 'involved' in the whole process. When my Dad asked
them (in private) why this was the case, the general reply was that
they weren't going to take any notice of them in any case. So, do you
think they would be the ones trying to introduce any new safety
related rules or regs? ;-(

On 03/07/16 03:48, RayL12 wrote:
Brian, I have always relied on those 'friends' who cannot wait for new
tech so they can buy in.

And I have always relied on those who can wait, but still bought it.

If, after 5 years it's still stable, I consider buying it.



--
If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will
eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such
time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic
and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally
important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for
the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the
truth is the greatest enemy of the State.

Joseph Goebbels

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 09:24:53 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

That, of course, is one of the things the EU regulates, to ensure
conformity across the member states - industrial and product safety. The
other main areas relate to trade between the states, covering
agriculture, industry and commerce. In other areas, such as crime,
health or traffic, the individual states are largely left to their own
devices.

If only. The EU sets itself out to be a barrier between people and
companies in different countries trying to conduct productive commerce.
These parasitic Eurocrats make their money from interfering in commerce
and charging hard working, enterprising people a fortune for granting
them permissions and licences to do what previously they could freely do
without having to negotiate mountains of red tape and a maze of loony
regulations.

On Sun, 3 Jul 2016 13:05:14 -0000 (UTC), Cursitor Doom
wrote:

On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 09:24:53 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

That, of course, is one of the things the EU regulates, to ensure
conformity across the member states - industrial and product safety. The
other main areas relate to trade between the states, covering
agriculture, industry and commerce. In other areas, such as crime,
health or traffic, the individual states are largely left to their own
devices.

If only. The EU sets itself out to be a barrier between people and
companies in different countries trying to conduct productive commerce.
These parasitic Eurocrats make their money from interfering in commerce
and charging hard working, enterprising people a fortune for granting
them permissions and licences to do what previously they could freely do
without having to negotiate mountains of red tape and a maze of loony
regulations.
`
Hey, I didn't realise you were a hypocrite *as well* (as a loser) as
you only wanted to talk about d-i-y?

Oh, what part of the following makes you think the EU *want* to get
involved in any of it (you might have to get nursey to explain it to
you). ;-)

" 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
"

Cheers, T i m

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/07/16 03:48, RayL12 wrote:
Brian, I have always relied on those 'friends' who cannot wait for new
tech so they can buy in.

And I have always relied on those who can wait, but still bought it.

If, after 5 years it's still stable, I consider buying it.




Generally, when it's obsolete, it's reliable!

On 03/07/16 16:50, Capitol wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 03/07/16 03:48, RayL12 wrote:
Brian, I have always relied on those 'friends' who cannot wait for new
tech so they can buy in.

And I have always relied on those who can wait, but still bought it.

If, after 5 years it's still stable, I consider buying it.




Generally, when it's obsolete, it's reliable!

It's obsolete after 10 years usually.

If its 'tech'

After 5 years its merely 'cheap';-)

--
To ban Christmas, simply give turkeys the vote.

On 03-Jul-16 2:05 PM, Cursitor Doom wrote:
On Sun, 03 Jul 2016 09:24:53 +0100, Nightjar wrote:

That, of course, is one of the things the EU regulates, to ensure
conformity across the member states - industrial and product safety. The
other main areas relate to trade between the states, covering
agriculture, industry and commerce. In other areas, such as crime,
health or traffic, the individual states are largely left to their own
devices.

If only. The EU sets itself out to be a barrier between people and
companies in different countries trying to conduct productive commerce.
These parasitic Eurocrats make their money from interfering in commerce
and charging hard working, enterprising people a fortune for granting
them permissions and licences to do what previously they could freely do
without having to negotiate mountains of red tape and a maze of loony
regulations.


Certainly not my experience of dealing with Europe. Perhaps you could
provide a specific example?

--
--

Colin Bignell