http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411

On Sun, 6 Aug 2017 00:28:25 -0700 (PDT), harry
wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411
Not bad, well handled.

Unlike the stupidity where the same press that lied over Brexit, made
a laughing stock of Edwina for trying to break similar news in the UK.

Mark my words, it'l be bleached chicken fillets next. That wouldn't
happen in Belgium!!


AB

On 06/08/2017 09:45, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Unlike the stupidity where the same press that lied over Brexit,

And despite that we still got the correct Brexit result.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Maybe someone should look into why they lied.


Personally I don't give a damn, but for the UK to have to pick up the
bill for moving the financial institutions seems to sum up completely
the lemming like approach to the whole thing.

With the sums involved, there have to be the odd few winners
somewhere. It certainly isn't the UK consumer, taxpayer or worker
though.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...+World+News%29


"How much can we give you to take our jobs"?

ROLTWL


AB



On Sun, 06 Aug 2017 15:09:25 +0100, Tim Streater
wrote:

In article , alan_m
wrote:

On 06/08/2017 09:45, Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote:

Unlike the stupidity where the same press that lied over Brexit,

And despite that we still got the correct Brexit result.

And that despite the nearly £10M of our money wasted on Remain
propaganda.

On 06-Aug-17 8:28 AM, harry wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411


The only responsibility that the EU has for anything in that story is
that it set the food standards that were broken.

--
--

Colin Bignell

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote

Personally I don't give a damn, but for the UK to have to pick
up the bill for moving the financial institutions seems to sum
up completely the lemming like approach to the whole thing.

Even Britain wont actually be stupid enough to do that, you watch.

With the sums involved, there have to be the odd few winners somewhere.

Yep, Britain will be able to decide for itself which EUians
it will allow to move to Britain, the ones useful to Britain.

It certainly isn't the UK consumer, taxpayer or worker though.

Corse it will be with immigration alone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...+World+News%29

"How much can we give you to take our jobs"?

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.

ROLTWL

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 03:41:20 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote

Personally I don't give a damn, but for the UK to have to pick
up the bill for moving the financial institutions seems to sum
up completely the lemming like approach to the whole thing.

Even Britain wont actually be stupid enough to do that, you watch.

With the sums involved, there have to be the odd few winners somewhere.

Yep, Britain will be able to decide for itself which EUians
it will allow to move to Britain, the ones useful to Britain.

It should have been clear even to you that it isn't going to happen in
the way the idiots that voted to "keep Britain British" want it.

The best outcome is a shifting of the goalposts. Do you think this
gormless shower that are in now are going to see off the cheap
agricultural labour? The carers will not be replaced too easily
either.

Of course the pound has dropped so much, it isn't just NHS staff the
government will be touting for overseas.

Of course there are the rest of the brain dead morons who are going to
be so dissapointed when all those horrible brown people are still here
in droves.


The Governments Ponzi scheme is going to need more supporters also and
unless the anglo saxons start bonking like crazy, the new workforce
are going to be increasingly multinational.





It certainly isn't the UK consumer, taxpayer or worker though.

Corse it will be with immigration alone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...+World+News%29

"How much can we give you to take our jobs"?

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.

Well it's happening. The Sun and Mail may not want to broadcast it,
but it's going ahead. Someone is reading the wrong papers to you.

AB



ROLTWL

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote

Personally I don't give a damn, but for the UK to have to pick
up the bill for moving the financial institutions seems to sum
up completely the lemming like approach to the whole thing.

Even Britain wont actually be stupid enough to do that, you watch.

With the sums involved, there have to be the odd few winners somewhere.

Yep, Britain will be able to decide for itself which EUians
it will allow to move to Britain, the ones useful to Britain.

It should have been clear even to you that it isn't going to happen
in the way the idiots that voted to "keep Britain British" want it.

Bet it does on that.

The best outcome is a shifting of the goalposts.

And that is what is needed with immigration.

Why should Britain have to accept any Romanian or Pole that decided
their prospects in Britain are better than where they are coming from ?

Do you think this gormless shower that are in now
are going to see off the cheap agricultural labour?

Corse not, because that is useful for Britain.

The carers will not be replaced too easily either.

Why would they want to replace them when they can't find
enough Brits who want to wipe geriatric arses for peanuts ?

Of course the pound has dropped so much,

Even sillier that you usually manage. And that's good for exports anyway,
stupid.

it isn't just NHS staff the government will be touting for overseas.

Sure, but it does get to decide that a Romanian who can
only wash cars or can't find any useful employment in
Britain isnt welcome and can turn them away at the border.

That's what every other modern first world country
has done for years now, except the stupid EU.

Of course there are the rest of the brain dead morons
who are going to be so dissapointed when all those
horrible brown people are still here in droves.

Sure, but that's the consequence of the implosion of the empire.

The Governments Ponzi scheme

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

is going to need more supporters also and unless
the anglo saxons start bonking like crazy, the new
workforce are going to be increasingly multinational.

Sure, but now Britain gets to decide who gets to move
to Britain and who doesn't, unlike when in the EU. Just
like happens in every other modern first and second
world country for years now, except with the stupid EU.

It certainly isn't the UK consumer, taxpayer or worker though.

Corse it will be with immigration alone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...+World+News%29

"How much can we give you to take our jobs"?

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.

Well it's happening.

Nope, Britain aint paying for the movement of financial services
to the EU, and they arent even moving to the EU either.

Britain wont be paying for what Ireland is doing attempting
to make it attractive for financial services to move there. That
will be Ireland ****ing immense amounts of money against
the wall all by itself, just like it was with the housing bubble
there. And paid for by the EU, not by Britain this time, you watch.

The Sun and Mail may not want to broadcast it, but it's going ahead.

Like hell it is on the claim that Britain is paying for that.

Someone is reading the wrong papers to you.

Havent bothered with a paper for more than a decade now
and that was only for the couple of weeks in hospital with
a couple of dinosaur hospitals with no wifi and no affordable
mobile broadband either. Wouldn't happen today, I'd do fine
with my current $10/month unlimited free calls and texts to
landlines and mobiles in my country and the 10 most important
countrys in the world, and 1GB of data which would be all I
need for what I use instead of stupid newspapers.

On Mon, 7 Aug 2017 07:18:54 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote

Personally I don't give a damn, but for the UK to have to pick
up the bill for moving the financial institutions seems to sum
up completely the lemming like approach to the whole thing.

Even Britain wont actually be stupid enough to do that, you watch.

With the sums involved, there have to be the odd few winners somewhere.

Yep, Britain will be able to decide for itself which EUians
it will allow to move to Britain, the ones useful to Britain.

It should have been clear even to you that it isn't going to happen
in the way the idiots that voted to "keep Britain British" want it.

Bet it does on that.

The best outcome is a shifting of the goalposts.

And that is what is needed with immigration.

Why should Britain have to accept any Romanian or Pole that decided
their prospects in Britain are better than where they are coming from ?

Do you think this gormless shower that are in now
are going to see off the cheap agricultural labour?

Corse not, because that is useful for Britain.

The carers will not be replaced too easily either.

Why would they want to replace them when they can't find
enough Brits who want to wipe geriatric arses for peanuts ?

Of course the pound has dropped so much,

Even sillier that you usually manage. And that's good for exports anyway,
stupid.

it isn't just NHS staff the government will be touting for overseas.

Sure, but it does get to decide that a Romanian who can
only wash cars or can't find any useful employment in
Britain isnt welcome and can turn them away at the border.

That's what every other modern first world country
has done for years now, except the stupid EU.

Of course there are the rest of the brain dead morons
who are going to be so dissapointed when all those
horrible brown people are still here in droves.

Sure, but that's the consequence of the implosion of the empire.

The Governments Ponzi scheme

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

is going to need more supporters also and unless
the anglo saxons start bonking like crazy, the new
workforce are going to be increasingly multinational.

Sure, but now Britain gets to decide who gets to move
to Britain and who doesn't, unlike when in the EU. Just
like happens in every other modern first and second
world country for years now, except with the stupid EU.

It certainly isn't the UK consumer, taxpayer or worker though.

Corse it will be with immigration alone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...+World+News%29

"How much can we give you to take our jobs"?

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.

Well it's happening.

Nope, Britain aint paying for the movement of financial services
to the EU, and they arent even moving to the EU either.

Britain wont be paying for what Ireland is doing attempting
to make it attractive for financial services to move there. That
will be Ireland ****ing immense amounts of money against
the wall all by itself, just like it was with the housing bubble
there. And paid for by the EU, not by Britain this time, you watch.

The Sun and Mail may not want to broadcast it, but it's going ahead.

Like hell it is on the claim that Britain is paying for that.

Someone is reading the wrong papers to you.

Havent bothered with a paper for more than a decade now
and that was only for the couple of weeks in hospital with
a couple of dinosaur hospitals with no wifi and no affordable
mobile broadband either. Wouldn't happen today, I'd do fine
with my current $10/month unlimited free calls and texts to
landlines and mobiles in my country and the 10 most important
countrys in the world, and 1GB of data which would be all I
need for what I use instead of stupid newspapers.

You can put whatever interpretation you wish on the situation.

Very few of the Exit voters are going to be happy with the outcome,
and it will benefit very very few. As usual the taxpayer will pick up
the tab when all the low paid zero hour jobs fail to provide basic
support.

I had a pole wash my car, the full works for £25-00. Drive in and sit
in the waiting area while it happens.

The well known British one was my first choice, "hand washing and
valeting", trouble was it was a Sunday and the British layabout
explained that they worked on an appointments system at weekends. The
useless prat was idly stirring the contents of a bucket with a mop as
he explained this. There was no other vehicle, there was a noticable
absence of water at the exit. I think the chain was called Topps, I
can't recollect because it was around three years back and I have not
been back since.

At least with Polish and Bulgarians there is choice and on that day
they displayed a better work ethic. They have maintained their
standards on every subsequent visit.

I have not returned to Topps [ Come to think of it they used to have a
painted flag to proclaim their "Britishness"] Another set of useless
******* who confuse flag waving as some kind of support for a country.

On that day the Poles provided more support for the UK than that
provided by the useless bucket stirrer, at least they kept the cash
circulating and provided work for others in turn.

On a final note, Britain does have control over who comes into the
country. The EU phrase is "Live and Work" if people dont live and work
in a country, they can be sent back home.

If you are merely stopping people from working in the country because
they might undercut those here already, then you are replicating what
the unions did during their worst excesses.

Mind you, now that the unions are crippled, removal of EU legislation
will no doubt see a total commitment to the employment of the
cheapest.


AB

Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote
Rod Speed wrote
Archibald Tarquin Blenkinsopp wrote

Personally I don't give a damn, but for the UK to have to pick
up the bill for moving the financial institutions seems to sum
up completely the lemming like approach to the whole thing.

Even Britain wont actually be stupid enough to do that, you watch.

With the sums involved, there have to be the odd few winners
somewhere.

Yep, Britain will be able to decide for itself which EUians
it will allow to move to Britain, the ones useful to Britain.

It should have been clear even to you that it isn't going to happen
in the way the idiots that voted to "keep Britain British" want it.

Bet it does on that.

The best outcome is a shifting of the goalposts.

And that is what is needed with immigration.

Why should Britain have to accept any Romanian or Pole that decides
their prospects in Britain are better than where they are coming from ?

Do you think this gormless shower that are in now
are going to see off the cheap agricultural labour?

Corse not, because that is useful for Britain.

The carers will not be replaced too easily either.

Why would they want to replace them when they can't find
enough Brits who want to wipe geriatric arses for peanuts ?

Of course the pound has dropped so much,

Even sillier that you usually manage. And
that's good for exports anyway, stupid.

it isn't just NHS staff the government will be touting for overseas.

Sure, but it does get to decide that a Romanian who can
only wash cars or can't find any useful employment in
Britain isnt welcome and can turn them away at the border.

That's what every other modern first world country
has done for years now, except the stupid EU.

Of course there are the rest of the brain dead morons
who are going to be so dissapointed when all those
horrible brown people are still here in droves.

Sure, but that's the consequence of the implosion of the empire.

The Governments Ponzi scheme

Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.

There's a reason so many want to move to Britain
even tho it's a soggy little frigid vastly overcrowded
island with silly prices for real estate anywhere with
decent employment prospects.

is going to need more supporters also and unless
the anglo saxons start bonking like crazy, the new
workforce are going to be increasingly multinational.

Sure, but now Britain gets to decide who gets to move
to Britain and who doesn't, unlike when in the EU. Just
like happens in every other modern first and second
world country for years now, except with the stupid EU.

It certainly isn't the UK consumer, taxpayer or worker though.

Corse it will be with immigration alone.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-br...+World+News%29

"How much can we give you to take our jobs"?

Even sillier than you usually manage, and that's saying something.

Well it's happening.

Nope, Britain aint paying for the movement of financial services
to the EU, and they arent even moving to the EU either.

Britain wont be paying for what Ireland is doing attempting
to make it attractive for financial services to move there. That
will be Ireland ****ing immense amounts of money against
the wall all by itself, just like it was with the housing bubble
there. And paid for by the EU, not by Britain this time, you watch.

The Sun and Mail may not want to broadcast it, but it's going ahead.

Like hell it is on the claim that Britain is paying for that.

Someone is reading the wrong papers to you.

Havent bothered with a paper for more than a decade now
and that was only for the couple of weeks in hospital with
a couple of dinosaur hospitals with no wifi and no affordable
mobile broadband either. Wouldn't happen today, I'd do fine
with my current $10/month unlimited free calls and texts to
landlines and mobiles in my country and the 10 most important
countrys in the world, and 1GB of data which would be all I
need for what I use instead of stupid newspapers.

You can put whatever interpretation you wish on the situation.

The FACT that financial institutions arent moving
from Britain to the EU and that Britain aint going
to pay for that isnt an interpretation, it's a fact.

Very few of the Exit voters are going to be happy with the outcome,

Easy to claim...

and it will benefit very very few.

Easy to claim...

As usual the taxpayer will pick up the tab when all the
low paid zero hour jobs fail to provide basic support.

How odd that so many EUians poured into Britain for those jobs.

I had a pole wash my car, the full works for £25-00.
Drive in and sit in the waiting area while it happens.

The well known British one was my first choice, "hand washing
and valeting", trouble was it was a Sunday and the British layabout
explained that they worked on an appointments system at weekends.

Presumably because that's when there is most demand for that
sort of service when most would need to be a work on weekdays.

The useless prat was idly stirring the contents of a bucket
with a mop as he explained this. There was no other vehicle,
there was a noticable absence of water at the exit. I think
the chain was called Topps, I can't recollect because it was
around three years back and I have not been back since.

Rather unlikely they hanged themselves when you didn't.

At least with Polish and Bulgarians there is choice and
on that day they displayed a better work ethic. They have
maintained their standards on every subsequent visit.

And the majority who bothered to vote didn't care enough
about that to vote to stay in the EU. You get to like that or
lump it or bugger off to Ireland once Britain has left and
get to pay for the latest total ****up they manage to do.

I have not returned to Topps [ Come to think of it they used to have
a painted flag to proclaim their "Britishness"] Another set of useless
******* who confuse flag waving as some kind of support for a country.

See above.

On that day the Poles provided more support for the UK than
that provided by the useless bucket stirrer, at least they kept
the cash circulating and provided work for others in turn.

See above.

On a final note, Britain does have control
over who comes into the country.

Not when it's a EUian it doesn't.

The EU phrase is "Live and Work" if people dont live
and work in a country, they can be sent back home.

Even sillier and more pig ignorant than you
usually manage, and that's saying something.

If you are merely stopping people from working in the country
because they might undercut those here already, then you are
replicating what the unions did during their worst excesses.

Irrelevant to what the majority who bothered to vote voted for.

Mind you, now that the unions are crippled, removal
of EU legislation will no doubt see a total commitment
to the employment of the cheapest.

How odd that the Torys actually produced a national minimum
wage, and increase the amount that had to be paid, too.

On 07/08/2017 00:18, Rod Speed wrote:

ou can put whatever interpretation you wish on the situation.

The FACT that financial institutions arent moving
from Britain to the EU and that Britain aint going
to pay for that isnt an interpretation, it's a fact.

The real fact is that the large financial banks have already moved staff
to EU countries in case we have a hard brexit.
The business will follow if it has to.


You must try to keep up rod.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
web.com...
On 07/08/2017 00:18, Rod Speed wrote:

ou can put whatever interpretation you wish on the situation.

The FACT that financial institutions arent moving
from Britain to the EU and that Britain aint going
to pay for that isnt an interpretation, it's a fact.

The real fact is that the large financial banks have already moved staff
to EU countries in case we have a hard brexit.

Thats a lie, not a fact. No point in moving them
now given that a hard brexit is 2 years away.

The business will follow if it has to.

It wont, you watch.

You must try to keep up rod.

You must try to stop lying thru your ****ing teeth, dense.

On 07/08/2017 08:58, dennis@home wrote:
On 07/08/2017 00:18, Rod Speed wrote:

ou can put whatever interpretation you wish on the situation.

The FACT that financial institutions arent moving
from Britain to the EU and that Britain aint going
to pay for that isnt an interpretation, it's a fact.

The real fact is that the large financial banks have already moved staff
to EU countries in case we have a hard brexit.
The business will follow if it has to.



They were already talking of that BEFORE Cameron even suggested that
there was going to be a referendum.

It may be wise to treat all current Brexit stories in the media with a
large pinch of salt. Too many people/organisations with an agenda of
their own put out press releases which the media publish without
questioning the validity of the information. Even leaders of other EU
countries will try and put the boot in knowing that if/once the UK
leaves the EU they they may have to be net contributors to the EU finances.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
It may be wise to treat all current Brexit stories in the media with a
large pinch of salt. Too many people/organisations with an agenda of
their own put out press releases which the media publish without
questioning the validity of the information. Even leaders of other EU
countries will try and put the boot in knowing that if/once the UK
leaves the EU they they may have to be net contributors to the EU
finances.

Back to that one. You'll be saying next our contributions will go to the
NHS after leaving.

--
*Husband and cat lost -- reward for cat

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

On 07/08/2017 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
It may be wise to treat all current Brexit stories in the media with a
large pinch of salt. Too many people/organisations with an agenda of
their own put out press releases which the media publish without
questioning the validity of the information. Even leaders of other EU
countries will try and put the boot in knowing that if/once the UK
leaves the EU they they may have to be net contributors to the EU
finances.

Back to that one. You'll be saying next our contributions will go to the
NHS after leaving.


No I was just making the point that a lot of lobbying is from relatively
small groups that may lose out from us leaving the EU.

However, there is a bloody good chance that to save the NHS from
imploding the politicians will soon allocate the equivalent amount of
extra money to the budget. Although this is likely to happen with or
without Brexit you may look a bit silly when the politicians claim it is
from money that may be saved by not paying into the EU.

--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

On 07/08/17 13:55, alan_m wrote:
you may look a bit silly when the politicians claim it is from money
that may be saved by not paying into the EU.

Surely Plowman doesn't need that to achieve that objective?

In message , alan_m
writes




No I was just making the point that a lot of lobbying is from
relatively small groups that may lose out from us leaving the EU.

Like the UK vehicle manufacturing industry - to whom the Government
immediately said "Don't worry chaps - we'll see you OK"?



--
Ian

On 07/08/2017 14:15, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , alan_m
writes




No I was just making the point that a lot of lobbying is from
relatively small groups that may lose out from us leaving the EU.

Like the UK vehicle manufacturing industry - to whom the Government
immediately said "Don't worry chaps - we'll see you OK"?


But it was the National Trust last week - presumably thinking that they
would be loosing subsidies for not farming the land they own.


--
mailto: news {at} admac {dot] myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 07/08/2017 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
It may be wise to treat all current Brexit stories in the media with a
large pinch of salt. Too many people/organisations with an agenda of
their own put out press releases which the media publish without
questioning the validity of the information. Even leaders of other EU
countries will try and put the boot in knowing that if/once the UK
leaves the EU they they may have to be net contributors to the EU
finances.

Back to that one. You'll be saying next our contributions will go to the
NHS after leaving.


No I was just making the point that a lot of lobbying is from relatively
small groups that may lose out from us leaving the EU.

Unless we find new markets to replace the trade we currently do with the
EU - including services - we'll all loose out in the end.

However, there is a bloody good chance that to save the NHS from
imploding the politicians will soon allocate the equivalent amount of
extra money to the budget. Although this is likely to happen with or
without Brexit you may look a bit silly when the politicians claim it is
from money that may be saved by not paying into the EU.

--
*A fool and his money are soon partying *

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

"Ian Jackson" wrote in message
...
In message , alan_m
writes




No I was just making the point that a lot of lobbying is from relatively
small groups that may lose out from us leaving the EU.

Like the UK vehicle manufacturing industry - to whom the Government
immediately said "Don't worry chaps - we'll see you OK"?

And only fools believed them.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
On 07/08/2017 11:11, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
alan_m wrote:
It may be wise to treat all current Brexit stories in the media with a
large pinch of salt. Too many people/organisations with an agenda of
their own put out press releases which the media publish without
questioning the validity of the information. Even leaders of other EU
countries will try and put the boot in knowing that if/once the UK
leaves the EU they they may have to be net contributors to the EU
finances.

Back to that one. You'll be saying next our contributions will go to
the
NHS after leaving.


No I was just making the point that a lot of lobbying is from relatively
small groups that may lose out from us leaving the EU.

Unless we find new markets to replace the trade we currently do with the
EU - including services - we'll all loose out in the end.

Nope, the trade with the EU will continue unaffected, you watch.

However, there is a bloody good chance that to save the NHS from
imploding the politicians will soon allocate the equivalent amount of
extra money to the budget. Although this is likely to happen with or
without Brexit you may look a bit silly when the politicians claim it is
from money that may be saved by not paying into the EU.

On 06/08/2017 16:48, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Aug-17 8:28 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411


The only responsibility that the EU has for anything in that story is
that it set the food standards that were broken.

Belgium politicians do have form for this sort of food contamination
cover up though. There was a really big one when I lived there in 1999
with PCBs and dioxin (from industrial transformer oil) in chicken feed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/358634.stm

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 08-Aug-17 9:26 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/08/2017 16:48, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Aug-17 8:28 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411


The only responsibility that the EU has for anything in that story is
that it set the food standards that were broken.

Belgium politicians do have form for this sort of food contamination
cover up though. There was a really big one when I lived there in 1999
with PCBs and dioxin (from industrial transformer oil) in chicken feed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/358634.stm


Still not the fault of the EU.

--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 08-Aug-17 9:26 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/08/2017 16:48, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Aug-17 8:28 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411


The only responsibility that the EU has for anything in that story is
that it set the food standards that were broken.

Belgium politicians do have form for this sort of food contamination
cover up though. There was a really big one when I lived there in 1999
with PCBs and dioxin (from industrial transformer oil) in chicken feed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/358634.stm


Still not the fault of the EU.

Of course it is. Anything ever done by any country in the EU is the EU's
fault. Excepting the UK, of course.

--
*Remember: First you pillage, then you burn.

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
Not specifically, no. But it's a mindset. A year or so ago, a
non-kipper MEP gave a talk at which he described how easy it is to
start a company (as in, register one so you can start activity) in the
UK compared to Belgium. He took, oddly enough, opening a restaurant in
Belgium as an example. He described how you have to get the agreement
of the Chamber of Commerce, which will enquire of the other restaurants
in the area as to whether another one is needed. You can guess what
their answers might be. So even if they agree, it will take weeks to
register your company. Compared to a day or less in the UK (I've never
done it myself, I have to say).

But surely the EU rules us all? If not, gives preferential treatment to
any country other than the UK?

It's an example of how continental business is organised into cartels.
This mindset carries over into the EU's behaviour, which explains why
they find the notion of consulting the people so larfable.

But didn't apply to the UK.

--
*Why is it that most nudists are people you don't want to see naked?*

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

On 08-Aug-17 7:34 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 08-Aug-17 9:26 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/08/2017 16:48, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Aug-17 8:28 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411


The only responsibility that the EU has for anything in that story
is that it set the food standards that were broken.

Belgium politicians do have form for this sort of food contamination
cover up though. There was a really big one when I lived there in
1999 with PCBs and dioxin (from industrial transformer oil) in
chicken feed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/358634.stm


Still not the fault of the EU.

Not specifically, no. But it's a mindset. A year or so ago, a
non-kipper MEP gave a talk at which he described how easy it is to
start a company (as in, register one so you can start activity) in the
UK compared to Belgium. He took, oddly enough, opening a restaurant in
Belgium as an example. He described how you have to get the agreement
of the Chamber of Commerce, which will enquire of the other restaurants
in the area as to whether another one is needed. You can guess what
their answers might be.

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid too
many of one type in one area.

So even if they agree, it will take weeks to
register your company. Compared to a day or less in the UK (I've never
done it myself, I have to say).

You can register a business quickly enough, but actually getting it
running can take a very long time. About a year ago I was talking to a
woman who had given up her job to buy a roadside food stand. It took her
about six months to get the appropriate paperwork. For her, part of that
was the highways authority permission to continue to use the lay-by. The
equivalent for a High Street restaurant, unless replacing an existing
restaurant, would be getting a change of use to Class A3. The other
major delay, which would apply to both cases, was getting the food
standards rating.
It's an example of how continental business is organised into cartels.

They have retained the Guild approach to business far longer than we have.

This mindset carries over into the EU's behaviour, which explains why
they find the notion of consulting the people so larfable.

I wouldn't describe consulting the people as a major attribute of the UK
system either.


--
--

Colin Bignell

"Nightjar" wrote in message
...
On 08-Aug-17 7:34 PM, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 08-Aug-17 9:26 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/08/2017 16:48, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Aug-17 8:28 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411


The only responsibility that the EU has for anything in that story is
that it set the food standards that were broken.

Belgium politicians do have form for this sort of food contamination
cover up though. There was a really big one when I lived there in 1999
with PCBs and dioxin (from industrial transformer oil) in chicken feed.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/358634.stm


Still not the fault of the EU.

Not specifically, no. But it's a mindset. A year or so ago, a
non-kipper MEP gave a talk at which he described how easy it is to
start a company (as in, register one so you can start activity) in the
UK compared to Belgium. He took, oddly enough, opening a restaurant in
Belgium as an example. He described how you have to get the agreement
of the Chamber of Commerce, which will enquire of the other restaurants
in the area as to whether another one is needed. You can guess what
their answers might be.

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid too
many of one type in one area.

No thanks, not way some shiny bum should get
any say what so ever on something like that.

We have one substantial drive thru what you lot
call an off license that very aggressively stops any
no operation flogging grog and we are actually
stupid enough to let shiny bums have any say
what so ever on what places can do that.

They prevent one of the surplus petrol stations
from being turned into one of those, after the place
had been bought by one of the national chains.

And are currently preventing our new Aldi from flogging that stuff.

So even if they agree, it will take weeks to
register your company. Compared to a day or less in the UK (I've never
done it myself, I have to say).

You can register a business quickly enough, but actually getting it
running can take a very long time. About a year ago I was talking to a
woman who had given up her job to buy a roadside food stand. It took her
about six months to get the appropriate paperwork. For her, part of that
was the highways authority permission to continue to use the lay-by. The
equivalent for a High Street restaurant, unless replacing an existing
restaurant, would be getting a change of use to Class A3. The other major
delay, which would apply to both cases, was getting the food standards
rating.
It's an example of how continental business is organised into cartels.

They have retained the Guild approach to business far longer than we have.

This mindset carries over into the EU's behaviour, which explains why
they find the notion of consulting the people so larfable.

I wouldn't describe consulting the people as a major attribute of the UK
system either.


--
--

Colin Bignell

On 09/08/17 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 08-Aug-17 7:34 PM, Tim Streater wrote:

It's an example of how continental business is organised into cartels.

They have retained the Guild approach to business far longer than we
have.

And as Terry Pratchett noted, if you're going to have crime, it may as
well be organised crime.

Guild of Thieves, anyone? Judging by what I read today about Junker's
recent expenses binge, the EU is certainly that.

All government is a self legalising protection racket

the only variables are how corrupt they are.

democracy done reasonbly well keeps some sort of brake on corruption.

That is why the EU doesn't do it properly



--
Renewable energy: Expensive solutions that don't work to a problem that
doesn't exist instituted by self legalising protection rackets that
don't protect, masquerading as public servants who don't serve the public.

On 09/08/2017 10:31, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 08-Aug-17 7:34 PM, Tim Streater wrote:

It's an example of how continental business is organised into cartels.

They have retained the Guild approach to business far longer than we
have.

And as Terry Pratchett noted, if you're going to have crime, it may as
well be organised crime.

Seems to work remarkably well in Japan. The Yakuza were first on the
scene assisting after some of the major earthquakes.

http://www.businessinsider.com/japan...ts-2011-3?IR=T

In the early stages they were better organised than the "authorities"
who spent way too long in meetings reaching a consensus on what to do!

Guild of Thieves, anyone? Judging by what I read today about Junker's
recent expenses binge, the EU is certainly that.

The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a sensible
decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately pay the price.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

On 09/08/2017 12:40, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Martin Brown wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a sensible
decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately pay the price.

Ummm, no. Given the correlation of voting patterns against age, they'll
be dead.

Pay the ultimate price then... (seems a bit drastic to me)

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a
sensible decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately pay
the price.

The EU is fundamentally undemocratic. That alone is reason enough for
leaving.

Please give an example of your ideal democracy. Haven't had a good laugh
today yet.

--
*It doesn't take a genius to spot a goat in a flock of sheep *

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

In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Martin Brown wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a
sensible decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately
pay the price.

Ummm, no. Given the correlation of voting patterns against age, they'll
be dead.

So everyone in London is young? Same with Scotland?

My guess was the vote was swayed by areas of depravation voting out.
Hoping any (promised) change would be better than none. Same as with Trump.

Sadly for them, I'd say they've shot themselves in the foot. May on taking
office did acknowledge their position, and promised to do something about
it. But that promise lasted as long as the one about not calling an early
election. And when things get tight here - as they will after we leave the
EU - the establishment will make sure they protect themselves first, as
always.

--
*I am a nobody, and nobody is perfect; therefore I am perfect*

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

On Tuesday, 8 August 2017 18:43:56 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:


Of course it is. Anything ever done by any country in the EU is the EU's
fault. Excepting the UK, of course.

Personally I blame that bloody butterfly that flaps it's wings and causes tornados, tsunamis, global warming and now BREXIT, we should have squashed it when we had the chance. :-{}

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 13:36:15 UTC+1, Martin Brown wrote:
On 09/08/2017 12:40, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Martin Brown wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a sensible
decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately pay the price.

Ummm, no. Given the correlation of voting patterns against age, they'll
be dead.

Pay the ultimate price then... (seems a bit drastic to me)

what is the latest ultimate price, seems to be 50 billion then 60 then 80 then 100 now it's 36. I wonder what it will be next week, I wonder if the weather affects it.

On Wednesday, 9 August 2017 14:17:48 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Martin Brown wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a
sensible decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately
pay the price.

Ummm, no. Given the correlation of voting patterns against age, they'll
be dead.

So everyone in London is young? Same with Scotland?

I thought everyone died yuong in scotland due to the deep fat frying and lack of veg. ;-)


My guess was the vote was swayed by areas of depravation voting out.

I'd say percieved depravation which is slightly differnt.

Hoping any (promised) change would be better than none. Same as with Trump.

Yes I'd agree if only the top end had passed just a little but more down the greasy ladder it wouldn't have happend.


Sadly for them, I'd say they've shot themselves in the foot. May on taking
office did acknowledge their position,

a bit too late.


and promised to do something about
it. But that promise lasted as long as the one about not calling an early
election. And when things get tight here - as they will after we leave the
EU - the establishment will make sure they protect themselves first, as
always.

Yep, that the only sure thing we can really say.
What the bettign that some politicians will claim that they can only afford to live in london if tehy are given a free house , free transport and food and a payrise well above that of inflation.

In article ,
whisky-dave wrote:
My guess was the vote was swayed by areas of depravation voting out.

I'd say percieved depravation which is slightly differnt.

There are some incredibly poor areas of the UK.

--
*If love is blind, why is lingerie so popular?

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

In article ,
Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Huge
wrote:

On 2017-08-09, Martin Brown wrote:

[24 lines snipped]

The EU is far from perfect but that still doesn't make Brexit a sensible
decision. The people who voted for Brexit will ultimately pay the price.

Ummm, no. Given the correlation of voting patterns against age, they'll
be dead.

It'll be the yoof who will benefit. They'll be in a country with low
youth unemployment, compared to the EU with its *high* youth
unemployment. Which is why Our Vince was talking the usual LibDem cock.

There are already plenty dead end jobs in the UK for 'yoof'. Who don't
want them. Hence all the immigrants hard at work.

--
*Frustration is trying to find your glasses without your glasses.

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

On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid too
many of one type in one area.

That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.
I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.


--
--

Colin Bignell

In article ,
Nightjar wrote:
On 09-Aug-17 9:52 AM, Huge wrote:
On 2017-08-09, Nightjar wrote:

[32 lines snipped]

I've long thought that local planners should have more say in what types
of businesses are allowed on the High Street, specifically to avoid too
many of one type in one area.

That's what free markets are for....

As far as the High Street is concerned, that often means a large chain
moving in and undercutting the existing small businesses with special
offers that disappear as soon as the existing businesses stop trading.
I'm all in favour of small businesses benefiting from a bit of
protectionism.


Quite. Have a look at a large supermarket chain 'local' after the
competition has gone. No more offers - and usually no more own economy
brand. Wouldn't surprise me if branded goods were more expensive than in
one of their larger stores, either.

--
*Time is the best teacher; unfortunately it kills all its students.

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

In article , Tim Streater
writes
In article , Nightjar
wrote:

On 08-Aug-17 9:26 AM, Martin Brown wrote:
On 06/08/2017 16:48, Nightjar wrote:
On 06-Aug-17 8:28 AM, harry wrote:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-40841411


The only responsibility that the EU has for anything in that story
is that it set the food standards that were broken.
Belgium politicians do have form for this sort of food
contamination cover up though. There was a really big one when I
lived there in 1999 with PCBs and dioxin (from industrial
transformer oil) in chicken feed.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/358634.stm


Still not the fault of the EU.

Not specifically, no. But it's a mindset. A year or so ago, a
non-kipper MEP gave a talk at which he described how easy it is to
start a company (as in, register one so you can start activity) in the
UK compared to Belgium. He took, oddly enough, opening a restaurant in
Belgium as an example. He described how you have to get the agreement
of the Chamber of Commerce, which will enquire of the other restaurants
in the area as to whether another one is needed. You can guess what
their answers might be. So even if they agree, it will take weeks to
register your company. Compared to a day or less in the UK (I've never
done it myself, I have to say).

You can buy one ready made of the shelf for a couple of hundred quid.
It's an example of how continental business is organised into cartels.
This mindset carries over into the EU's behaviour, which explains why
they find the notion of consulting the people so larfable.


--
bert