On 09/09/2019 17:40, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:24, Brian Reay wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:00, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/09/2019 22:50, Steve Walker wrote:

The problem with chlorinated chicken is simply that it is used to
"hide" the poor animal welfare, sanitary controls and transportation
of "some" suppliers, all leading to far higher levels of contamination
than in the EU.

That used to be the explanation for curry too, didn't it?

I don't recall there was any foundation for that either.

Â*From the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health:

"US chicken has been banned in the EU since 1997 because of this
chlorine washing process. While the chlorine isnt toxic at the levels
being used, US processing plants rely solely on it because their other
hygiene standards are so poor. EU rules dictate that food manufacturers
should focus on overall hygiene to eliminate microorganisms, instead of
using a single chemical decontamination step."

"Recent studies have proved this process to be entirely ineffective in
reducing the presence or virulence of bacteria ... This might account
for why the rate of food poisoning in the US is approximately 10 times
higher than in the UK."

SteveW


Oh dear, you will upset someone by quoting facts.

No reason to. I am a leaver, but don't want poor animal welfare
standards or contaminated food.

I agree.

I've no time for those who mistreat animals and like / appreciate
quality food.

There is a lot of nonsense spouted about food standards, animal welfare
etc. I make a point of eating quality food, serving it to my family etc.
I'd have no issue with eating or serving chlorine washed chicken.

(It is common practice to wash vegetables and salad etc in a solution
containing chlorine. Lots of people do it. One product is wildly sold
in Boots etc under the trade name Milton. It is also used so sterilise
baby's bottles, water tanks in motorhomes,....)

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

In article , "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 09/09/2019 11:59, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"

Farmers are already subsidised and paid to do other things than grow
food. If you want to close all that down, feel free, but expect all
farmland to revert to scrub or forest in short order.

That sounds like a good idea.

Except when you want to visit it and can't because it's all scrubland
and forest.

What's wrong with a bit of scrubland and forest ? Post Brexit just think of all
those dispossed townies you could have camping out in the scrubland
just over your garden fence.

I'm a townie myself but what with all the austerity a lot of local parks
now have "nature trails" basically just low maintainance scrub.
You'd be surprised how just high that stuff can grow just in months
given a bit or sunshine and rain.

Enjoy !


michael adams

....

On 09/09/2019 17:26, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Adams is a dimwit, eh?

More rude names I see. Things still not going well ?

Only a thickie like him would be unable to
comprehend that such tariffs are already being
imposed on goods sold to RoW. What's so hard
about that, eh? Answer, it isn't.

Dear me.

At present specific tariffs apply on UK exports to
countries in the RoW which currently enjoy FTA's with
the EU. But that will obviously no longer apply once the UK
leaves the EU.

Why would tarrifs be imposed on countries that have and FTA with the EU
on goods from ciunbries within the EU?
?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe...ade_agreements

Did nobody explain that to you ?

And why should anyone automatically assume that any tarriffs
which are going to be imposed on our exports are going to be
lower than they are at present, on goods and services which
directly compete with those of the importing country ?

Why would anyine assume they are going to be higher?


Is that what Donald promised you ?

Oh dear. Puereile


So one must assume he has another agenda. Gosh, I wonder what that could be.

Amusement at your folly ?

More especially given your decision, made at my own suggestion
no less, that you pin that "kick me" sign on your back. By keeping
up the pretence of having killfiled me.

Oh and how's the old "ultra vires" business coming along ?

We will see.


At least
you do get the odd latin phrase thrown in, when you splash out 25K
I suppose. Have you been billed for any refreshers yet ?

Ultra vires is an extremely important legal principle, like habeas corpus.

It is the one case in which the law can say 'act as though legally that
has never happened'


Shame you are too stupid to understand the implications of that.


michael adams

...





--
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 09/09/2019 17:40, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:24, Brian Reay wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:00, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/09/2019 22:50, Steve Walker wrote:

The problem with chlorinated chicken is simply that it is used to
"hide" the poor animal welfare, sanitary controls and transportation
of "some" suppliers, all leading to far higher levels of contamination
than in the EU.

That used to be the explanation for curry too, didn't it?

I don't recall there was any foundation for that either.

Â*From the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health:

"US chicken has been banned in the EU since 1997 because of this
chlorine washing process. While the chlorine isnt toxic at the levels
being used, US processing plants rely solely on it because their other
hygiene standards are so poor. EU rules dictate that food manufacturers
should focus on overall hygiene to eliminate microorganisms, instead of
using a single chemical decontamination step."

"Recent studies have proved this process to be entirely ineffective in
reducing the presence or virulence of bacteria ... This might account
for why the rate of food poisoning in the US is approximately 10 times
higher than in the UK."

SteveW


Oh dear, you will upset someone by quoting facts.

No reason to. I am a leaver, but don't want poor animal welfare
standards or contaminated food.


Then dont import food from the EU.

It wasn't US beansprouts that killed 31 people. And infected thousands
more. It wasnt even East European beansprouts that killed 31 people and
infected thousands more

It as ****ing GERMAN beansprouts - organic to boot - that killed 31
people. And infected thousands more.


SteveW


--
€œIt is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.€�

ۥ Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 07:50:28 +0000 (UTC), Brian Reay
wrote:

Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Brian Reay
wrote:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The problem with chlorinated chicken is simply that it is used to "hide"
the poor animal welfare, sanitary controls and transportation of "some"
suppliers, all leading to far higher levels of contamination than in the
EU. I am more concerned about about the welfare (I am a confirmed meat
eater, but see no reason to treat animals worse than is necessary) and
the fact that chlorination not only doesn't kill all the contamination,
but also prevents it being accurately checked. Figures clearly show that
the US rate of food poisoning is many times that in the UK.

That won't go down well with the average right wing Brexiteer here. The
only animals they likely care about the welfare of - including humans -
being dogs and horses.

Another sweeping and incorrect generalisation.

It's all you ever get from Our Dave - haven't you noticed?


I think that is unfair.

He also produces a lot of bovine muck. He must have a wonderful compost
heap ;-)

But I bet he's never been gagged by a car parking company...ROTFL.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Why would tarrifs be imposed on countries that have and FTA with the EU on goods from
ciunbries within the EU?

Now let me see....


michael adams

....

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 17:58:45 +0100, Brian Reay wrote:

On 09/09/2019 17:40, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:24, Brian Reay wrote:
Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:00, Norman Wells wrote:
On 08/09/2019 22:50, Steve Walker wrote:

The problem with chlorinated chicken is simply that it is used to
"hide" the poor animal welfare, sanitary controls and transportation
of "some" suppliers, all leading to far higher levels of contamination
than in the EU.

That used to be the explanation for curry too, didn't it?

I don't recall there was any foundation for that either.

*From the Chartered Institute of Environmental Health:

"US chicken has been banned in the EU since 1997 because of this
chlorine washing process. While the chlorine isn’t toxic at the levels
being used, US processing plants rely solely on it because their other
hygiene standards are so poor. EU rules dictate that food manufacturers
should focus on overall hygiene to eliminate microorganisms, instead of
using a single chemical decontamination step."

"Recent studies have proved this process to be entirely ineffective in
reducing the presence or virulence of bacteria ... This might account
for why the rate of food poisoning in the US is approximately 10 times
higher than in the UK."

SteveW


Oh dear, you will upset someone by quoting facts.

No reason to. I am a leaver, but don't want poor animal welfare
standards or contaminated food.

I agree.

I've no time for those who mistreat animals and like / appreciate
quality food.


There is a lot of nonsense spouted about food standards, animal welfare
etc. I make a point of eating quality food, serving it to my family etc.
I'd have no issue with eating or serving chlorine washed chicken.

So why are you so bleeding fat???

(It is common practice to wash vegetables and salad etc in a solution
containing chlorine. Lots of people do it. One product is wildly sold
in Boots etc under the trade name Milton. It is also used so sterilise
baby's bottles, water tanks in motorhomes,....)

Wow ..really ???

In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
Thanks for confirming you see it as some form of game. Where goals
being scored are important. That it makes a whit of difference who
applies tariffs first. As they are inevitable.

Oh dear, now you are being childish.

On the contrary. You seem to see it as some form of points scoring.

There is nothing inevitable about tariffs, if there was, free trade
agreements and zones wouldn't exist.

And that is why we are in the EU.

But let's just re-invent the wheel, shall we?

--
*How do they get the deer to cross at that yellow road sign?

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

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Look at the ridiculous case of Scotland and now Wales wanting to
introduce a minimum per unit price for alcohol and it being held up as a
number of countries contest it as a restriction of trade.

Scotland introduced a minimum price per unit of alcohol ages ago. That's
why illegal drug use has increased there.

2018 actually.

Although there were objections from the Scottish Whisky Association and
court cases, there were also objections from Spain, Italy, Portugal,
France and Bulgaria - which meant that the European Compaints Commission
proceedings were extended by at least another year - ie EU countries
were allowed to use EU law to object to what should be a country's
purely internal laws.

Even the cases heard in the UK were bounced to and from the ECJ and
centred on EU law. That all added years of delay.

And was won when Scotland pointed out (as if it wasn't obvious) that it
had nothing to do with trade, but health.

--
*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care.

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

In article ,
michael adams wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...

Why would any rational person think leaving the EU would make any
difference

rest snipped

Indeed.

Quite why you're so interested in a detailed examination
of the thought processes of clearly irrational people
somewhat escapes me, I must admit.


I keep hoping to have some reasonable arguments presented to convince me
I'm wrong.

Most of those given by the leave campaign to persuade us to vote for them
are long since shown to be nonsense.

--
*The most common name in the world is Mohammed *

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

"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .
In article , The Natural Philosopher
wrote:

On 09/09/2019 17:26, michael adams wrote:
"Tim Streater" wrote in message
.. .

Adams is a dimwit, eh?

More especially given your decision, made at my own suggestion
no less, that you pin that "kick me" sign on your back. By keeping
up the pretence of having killfiled me.

You are killfiled, dimwit. I only see your twaddle if someone replies
to it.

Of course you do Timmy, I believe you.

You claim you choose to ignore all my posts, but you somehow
can't resist answering some of those which others rather
conveniently allow you read

You do see the contradiction here Timmy, I take it ?

Either you're going to ignore me, or you're not.

Of course you can always pretend you haven't read this
one either, I suppose.

Anyone know what the twerp is talking about?

Why should you care ? You claim to have killfiled me don't forget.

Anyway carry on with the "killfile" Timmy. As you know it makes sense.

Otherwise you'll only upset yourself all over agin, as you did before.

I'm also told that the PM can advise Brenda not to grant assent to the
Surrender Bill, in which case constitutionally she has to take the
advice and not do so.

Told by whom, one might ask

That wouldn't be Turnip QC, by any chance ?


michael adams

....

On 09/09/2019 11:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:57, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
The problem with chlorinated chicken is simply that it is used to "hide"
the poor animal welfare, sanitary controls and transportation of "some"
suppliers, all leading to far higher levels of contamination than in the
EU. I am more concerned about about the welfare (I am a confirmed meat
eater, but see no reason to treat animals worse than is necessary) and
the fact that chlorination not only doesn't kill all the contamination,
but also prevents it being accurately checked. Figures clearly show that
the US rate of food poisoning is many times that in the UK.

That won't go down well with the average right wing Brexiteer here. The
only animals they likely care about the welfare of - including humans -
being dogs and horses.

Why? So long as it is well labelled and customers have the choice.

You think the label will say 'The only way this product is suitable for
human consumption was by the addition of chlorine'?

It will probably say "enhanced cleanliness" or something similar. Do you
drink water made "suitable for human consumption was by the addition of
chlorine"?

But the packaging will provide the origin of the chicken as being that
of the USA.

You have no need to get your knickers in a twist, you will have the
choice whether to eat it or not. Some choose to abstain from eating
meat, you have the right to join them too.

On 09/09/2019 18:56, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Why would tarriffs be imposed by countries that have an FTA with the EU on goods from
contries within the EU?

Now let me see....

Dont knock yourself out trying to think


michael adams

...




--
There is nothing a fleet of dispatchable nuclear power plants cannot do
that cannot be done worse and more expensively and with higher carbon
emissions and more adverse environmental impact by adding intermittent
renewable energy.

On 09/09/2019 13:30, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
You are utterly mad if you think the UK would accept the EU (or
anyone) imposing tariffs on its exports while refraining from doing so
to theirs.

Where did I suggest that?

However, read YOUR post again. It is significant YOU acknowledged the EU
would be the first to initiate the imposition of tariffs. Clearly even
you acknowledge the EU are the problem here.

Thanks for confirming you see it as some form of game. Where goals being
scored are important. That it makes a whit of difference who applies
tariffs first. As they are inevitable.

Hoist by your own petard.

Sadly, the vast majority of ordinary UK citizens will be shafted by the EU

That's better.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 18:56, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Why would tarriffs be imposed by countries that have an FTA with the EU on goods from
contries within the EU?

Now let me see....

Dont knock yourself out trying to think

Naughty naughty ! It seems that your now doctoring posts !

Here's what you actually posted

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Why would tarrifs be imposed on countries that have and FTA with the EU on goods from
ciunbries within the EU?

I'm still trying to find out, without any success I might add, what these "ciunbries"
of yours, actually are.

In any case I thought you were given your medication much later in the evening ?

Before you were strapped in for the night.


michael adams

....

On 09/09/2019 20:03, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 18:56, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Why would tarriffs be imposed by countries that have an FTA with the EU on goods from
contries within the EU?

Now let me see....

Dont knock yourself out trying to think

Naughty naughty ! It seems that your now doctoring posts !

Here's what you actually posted

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Why would tarrifs be imposed on countries that have and FTA with the EU on goods from
ciunbries within the EU?

I'm still trying to find out, without any success I might add, what these "ciunbries"
of yours, actually are.

In any case I thought you were given your medication much later in the evening ?

Before you were strapped in for the night.

I see you have gone senile and still have not answered the question
Presumably because you cant

Why would countries with whom the EU has an FTA impose tarriffs on
Britain while it is in the EU?




michael adams

...




--
€œIt is dangerous to be right in matters on which the established
authorities are wrong.€�

ۥ Voltaire, The Age of Louis XIV

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 20:03, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 18:56, michael adams wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...


Why would tarriffs be imposed by countries that have an FTA with the EU on goods
from
contries within the EU?

Now let me see....

Dont knock yourself out trying to think

Naughty naughty ! It seems that your now doctoring posts !

Here's what you actually posted

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...

Why would tarrifs be imposed on countries that have and FTA with the EU on goods from
ciunbries within the EU?

I'm still trying to find out, without any success I might add, what these "ciunbries"
of yours, actually are.

In any case I thought you were given your medication much later in the evening ?

Before you were strapped in for the night.

I see you have gone senile and still have not answered the question
Presumably because you cant

Why would countries with whom the EU has an FTA impose tarriffs on Britain while it is
in the EU?

Where did I ever say or imply that they do ?

The question under consideration is what will be the position after,
that's A........F.........T.......E.........R the UK has left the EU.

Timmy claimed that nothing necessarily would change. That was the point
being addressed.


michael adams

....

On 09/09/2019 14:58, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , "dennis@home"
wrote:

On 09/09/2019 12:54, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

On 09/09/2019 11:53, michael adams wrote:

The Govt are falling over themselves to publish the "good news" -
hurrah
we're going to abolish tarriffs on imports so everything is going
to be
cheaper

No, what it's said is that there won't be tariffs applied to 83% of
all the goods we import.

But are strangely silent on the tarriffs the RoW may impose on our
exports
which may render them uncompeteive.Â* Don't you worry your pretty
little
heads about those - or look them up if you can find out where to look.

Exporters have to at the moment for exports to anywhere outside the
EU. One assumes they're big enough and ugly enough to do it, and
don't need their hands holding all the time.Â* They're supposed to be
businessmen for goodness sake.Â* It goes with the territory.

Adams is a dimwit, eh? Only a thickie like him would be unable to
comprehend that such tariffs are already being imposed on goods sold to
RoW. What's so hard about that, eh? Answer, it isn't. So one must
assume he has another agenda. Gosh, I wonder what that could be.

Shame the EU has trade deals with 50 counties and is negotiating with
72 more that the UK won't be a part of. So we aren't currently putting
tariffs on the RoW, just some of it.

We're not talking about inbound tariffs, Den, we're talking about
outbound ones. Do keep up.


So its stupid, trade deals are bidirectional.

On 09/09/2019 16:11, tim... wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 13:02, tim... wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 08/09/2019 22:39, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 10:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Steve Walker
writes
On 08/09/2019 07:10, Stephen Cole wrote:




Whats the point of all of this, Brian? What do you people
genuinely
believe were going to gain from all this upheaval and madness?

Freedom to make our own choices, set our own laws, hold our own
government to account for allowing large numbers of immigrants
overloading already limited resources and infrastructure, reduce
the downward pressure on low-end wages.

We don't seem to have any difficulties setting our own laws. Hasn't
Parliament has just set one (subject to Royal assent on Monday)?

Can we decide on whether we want tracking in our new vehicles?
Expensive safety systems that make only a little difference to
safety, but render vehicles uneconomic to repair after only slight
damage?

Probably not as it will be uneconomicto produce many variants and
get them through the approvals with fundementally differen designs.
Its one thing swapping an engine or a few body panels, its something
else to build a new car from the ground up.

but it does mean that we can say "a not working thingamajig is no
longer an MOT failure"

I just had to scrap a car because some functionally unnecessary, but
mandatory, additional thingy broke and cost more to replace than the
car was worth.

Want to say what it was?

some emission sensor or other

the actual emissions were fine, it was just the sensor that was buggerd

To reduce or raise import tariffs on certain goods?

Probably, but it depends. Others can raise disputes if they think we
are abussing the WTO system.

That would be charging differential tariffs (which are legal, but
have to be justified)

simply setting a high tariff for all, is not an abuse of the system


At what level VAT should be set?

The UK government has set the VAT rates on everything.
The EU just has a rule that says you can't put VAT on something and
then take it off willynilly.


Whether any VAT is due on particular goods?

The UK government negotiated what we were putting VAT on.

No we didn't

Of course we did, why don't we have VAT on childrens cloths when the
rest of the EU does?

because the rule don't mandate that we put VAT on these items

just that we may, and that once we have doen so we can't take it off

Why didn't we have VAT on energy until the UK government decided that
a carbon tax was a good idea and used VAT to collect it?

because we didn't have to put VAT on fuel until HMG needed the extra income

You really do talk cock.

So says the class clown

So says the class fool.




the rules were already in place when we joined.

It was the UK government that put VAT on electricity and gas not the
EU.

but the rules says that once we put it on (a new category) we cannot
take it off again

So, we still put it on not the EU.

voluntarily, not because they told us to

You are catching on, soon you will understand that the EU doesn't do
half of what you claim.



To control immigration?

We might be able to, we can now for immigrants but don't and they
are about 60% of the net migration into the UK.

Non-EU immigration all fits into the category of:

Highly skilled workers (with a job offer) or joining family members
to be supported by the family already here

Almost none of the ROW immigration comes here to take up minimum wage
work and scrounge on the welfare state.

yet elderly parents are allowed in and get OAP and benefits.

no they aren't, because they wont have paid enough in to get a pension

So they get pension credits instead.


tim

On 09/09/2019 16:50, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Want to say what it was?

some emission sensor or other

the actual emissions were fine, it was just the sensor that was buggerd

Pattern ones are about £30.


You shouldn't tell him that he likes to think the EU caused him to scrap
the car and not stupidity.

On Mon, 9 Sep 2019 10:13:31 -0000 (UTC), Incubus
wrote:



He's pretty obviously a troll, not even as subtle as MM. I'm not going to
waste my time with him.

But you did you silly billy!

You aren't Doomed Dimwit are you? He delights in telling people they
are killfiled.

It provides an ego boost to reject one's superiors so readily. If You
are not doomed Dimwit, give it a try, you should find a lot of
superiors around to killfile.

AB

On 09/09/2019 17:38, Steve Walker wrote:
On 09/09/2019 15:11, dennis@home wrote:
On 09/09/2019 13:02, tim... wrote:


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 08/09/2019 22:39, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 10:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Steve Walker
writes
On 08/09/2019 07:10, Stephen Cole wrote:




Whats the point of all of this, Brian? What do you people
genuinely
believe were going to gain from all this upheaval and madness?

Freedom to make our own choices, set our own laws, hold our own
government to account for allowing large numbers of immigrants
overloading already limited resources and infrastructure, reduce
the downward pressure on low-end wages.

We don't seem to have any difficulties setting our own laws. Hasn't
Parliament has just set one (subject to Royal assent on Monday)?

Can we decide on whether we want tracking in our new vehicles?
Expensive safety systems that make only a little difference to
safety, but render vehicles uneconomic to repair after only slight
damage?

Probably not as it will be uneconomicto produce many variants and
get them through the approvals with fundementally differen designs.
Its one thing swapping an engine or a few body panels, its something
else to build a new car from the ground up.

but it does mean that we can say "a not working thingamajig is no
longer an MOT failure"

I just had to scrap a car because some functionally unnecessary, but
mandatory, additional thingy broke and cost more to replace than the
car was worth.

Want to say what it was?


To reduce or raise import tariffs on certain goods?

Probably, but it depends. Others can raise disputes if they think we
are abussing the WTO system.

That would be charging differential tariffs (which are legal, but
have to be justified)

simply setting a high tariff for all, is not an abuse of the system


At what level VAT should be set?

The UK government has set the VAT rates on everything.
The EU just has a rule that says you can't put VAT on something and
then take it off willynilly.


Whether any VAT is due on particular goods?

The UK government negotiated what we were putting VAT on.

No we didn't

Of course we did, why don't we have VAT on childrens cloths when the
rest of the EU does?
Why didn't we have VAT on energy until the UK government decided that
a carbon tax was a good idea and used VAT to collect it?
You really do talk cock.


the rules were already in place when we joined.

It was the UK government that put VAT on electricity and gas not the
EU.

but the rules says that once we put it on (a new category) we cannot
take it off again

So, we still put it on not the EU.

What does that matter, the simple fact that we cannot choose to take it
off show that it is under EU and not UK control.

The UK still sets the rate.


To control immigration?

We might be able to, we can now for immigrants but don't and they
are about 60% of the net migration into the UK.

Non-EU immigration all fits into the category of:

Highly skilled workers (with a job offer) or joining family members
to be supported by the family already here

Almost none of the ROW immigration comes here to take up minimum wage
work and scrounge on the welfare state.

yet elderly parents are allowed in and get OAP and benefits.

You can't even bring spouses in from RoW without showing that you can
support them!

Its been happening for years.

On 09/09/2019 17:34, Steve Walker wrote:
On 09/09/2019 12:14, dennis@home wrote:
On 08/09/2019 22:39, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 10:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Steve Walker
writes
On 08/09/2019 07:10, Stephen Cole wrote:




Whats the point of all of this, Brian? What do you people genuinely
believe were going to gain from all this upheaval and madness?

Freedom to make our own choices, set our own laws, hold our own
government to account for allowing large numbers of immigrants
overloading already limited resources and infrastructure, reduce
the downward pressure on low-end wages.

We don't seem to have any difficulties setting our own laws. Hasn't
Parliament has just set one (subject to Royal assent on Monday)?

Can we decide on whether we want tracking in our new vehicles?
Expensive safety systems that make only a little difference to
safety, but render vehicles uneconomic to repair after only slight
damage?

Probably not as it will be uneconomicto produce many variants and get
them through the approvals with fundementally differen designs. Its
one thing swapping an engine or a few body panels, its something else
to build a new car from the ground up.

To reduce or raise import tariffs on certain goods?

Probably, but it depends. Others can raise disputes if they think we
are abussing the WTO system.

At what level VAT should be set?

The UK government has set the VAT rates on everything.
The EU just has a rule that says you can't put VAT on something and
then take it off willynilly.


Whether any VAT is due on particular goods?

The UK government negotiated what we were putting VAT on.
It was the UK government that put VAT on electricity and gas not the EU.

"Under EU rules, countries must apply a minimum standard VAT rate of
15%. They have an option of applying one or two reduced rates, no lower
than 5%, to certain specified goods on a pre-approved list.
Further reduction of the VAT rate, including to 0%, is also allowed but
only for the goods which were taxed at that rate before 1991 and since
then.
Changes to the VAT rules require unanimous agreement of all 28 EU
countries."

So we cannot decide what we want to do.

We can ask, but it takes time and needs unanimous approval - how long
has it been since the fuss about sanitary products ... and although we
have managed to reduce it to 5%, we still cannot zero rate it.

We didn't have to put VAT on in the first place.


To control immigration?

We might be able to, we can now for immigrants but don't and they are
about 60% of the net migration into the UK.

If we tighten non-EU immigration, EU immigration goes up to compensate.
Once we can control immigration from the EU, we can have a proper system
- including tax incentives to train UK citizens rather than importing
workers. We can also then peoperly hold governments to account, as ALL
immigration will be under their control.

You seriously think training the UK citizens to wash cars and stuff will
make a difference?


And the list goes on.

And like all brexiteers you have chosen a set that are not implimented
by the EU but by the UK government, its almost as though brexiteers
don't have a clue.

Yes VAT was put on goods by UK governments, but it is the EU rules that
form a ratchet mechanism where once anything has VAT added, you can
never remove it. With VAT under our control, we could decide to zero
rate certain items - without outside interference.

We could, but we didn't have to put VAT on in the first place.


Yes we can make our own laws - but only if they don't contradict EU
laws or no EU country feels that that law affects their companies
more than others. Look at the ridiculous case of Scotland and now
Wales wanting to introduce a minimum per unit price for alcohol and
it being held up as a number of countries contest it as a restriction
of trade.


Yes just look at it.. Scotland do have a minimum price for alcohol so
thats another brexiteer talking cock.

And it took years of going through the courts first, both in the UK and
the ECJ - but in both, it was EU law that was being used to try and stop
it.

SteveW

The ECJ didn't take years they referred it back to the UK courts, it was
the UK courts and the whiskey producers that delayed it.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
On 08/09/2019 15:19, Fredxx wrote:
On 08/09/2019 12:44, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Brian Reay wrote:
Plus, tariffs are not mandatory. If the EU impose them and cause a
problem that is their problem.

Can I get this clear? In your Utopian UK, after crashing out, you want
the
UK to have no tariffs at all on imports?

Have you talked to your idol Trump about this?

Have you actually read Brian's post?

It is the choice of the importing nation to set tariffs, or agree an
alternative, ie a deal.

You misunderstand it is not the EU that sets UK import tariffs after a
no deal Brexit.



David is a Remainer, you can't expect him to read things let alone
understand even the most basic concepts.

You are utterly mad if you think the UK would accept the EU (or anyone)
imposing tariffs on its exports while refraining from doing so to theirs.

Some countries have done just that.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 06:48:28 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


You are utterly mad if you think the UK would accept the EU (or anyone)
imposing tariffs on its exports while refraining from doing so to theirs.

Some countries have done just that.

It's ALL none of yours, senile Ozzie pest! tsk

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Rod Speed" wrote in message
...


"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"tim..." wrote in message
...

but they can't live or work here once they get here, because
employers/landlords are supposed to check their eligibility

So that seems to be one of the *actual* reasons for people
voting for Brexit, blown to smithereens in one sentence.

Nope, because that isnt the case with the UK still in the EU, stupid.

The reason many people say they voted for Brexit was to control illegal
immigration.

Nope, to reduce the number of EUians free to move
to the UK when they decide that their prospects are
better in the UK than where they are coming from.

The fact, that like so many of the reasons people gave for voting Brexit
this is totally stupid and illogical,

Having fun thrashing that straw man ?

is rather besides the point.

It might be if it was actually true, but it isnt.

On 09/09/2019 19:18, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 23:54, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
Look at the ridiculous case of Scotland and now Wales wanting to
introduce a minimum per unit price for alcohol and it being held up as a
number of countries contest it as a restriction of trade.

Scotland introduced a minimum price per unit of alcohol ages ago. That's
why illegal drug use has increased there.

2018 actually.

Although there were objections from the Scottish Whisky Association and
court cases, there were also objections from Spain, Italy, Portugal,
France and Bulgaria - which meant that the European Compaints Commission
proceedings were extended by at least another year - ie EU countries
were allowed to use EU law to object to what should be a country's
purely internal laws.

Even the cases heard in the UK were bounced to and from the ECJ and
centred on EU law. That all added years of delay.

And was won when Scotland pointed out (as if it wasn't obvious) that it
had nothing to do with trade, but health.

But it is not about whether Scotland was allowed to do it or not. The
simple fact that EU law even had to be considered for an internal
matter, giving rise to years of delay is the problem.

SteveW

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 07:49:24 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


The reason many people say they voted for Brexit was to control illegal
immigration.

Nope

**** off, Ozzietard!

--
Trolling senile Rodent about himself:
"I was involved in the design of a computer OS"
MID:

"michael adams" wrote in message
...

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 08:55, tim... wrote:

we have already published our proposed scale of charges (Norman probably
knows where it is)

and, from examples that have been discussed, for many items the tariffs
are much lower than EU tariffs

It's he

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...exit-published


Those tarriffs are for imports. Which can indeed be set by the UK Govt.

Where are the UK Govt projections of the tarriffs likely to be imposed on
UK exports ?

Those are the tariffs currently imposed by the EU on imports to the
EU from countrys not in the EU and which don’t have a FTA with the
EU. That’s what the WTO rules require, all countrys which don’t have
a FTA with the EU have to have the same tariffs applied.

Have they been published anywhere ?

Don’t need to be.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:19:38 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Those are

Those are NONE of yours, senile Ozzie pest!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"Tim Lamb" wrote in message
...
In message , The Natural Philosopher
writes
On 09/09/2019 10:01, Pancho wrote:
I see the benefit of living in a community with shared standards and
rules.

But sadly, none of the downsides.

Or indeed the fact that nothing prevents a sovereign UK from sharing
European standards, and indeed rules.

Except of course the EU...

Consider the possibility that the EU got essentially bought by a cartel of
multinationals and banks who proceeded to run it as a criminal
organisation.

Do you seriously consider that a possibility?
I understand that political decisions may be guided by employment, tax
revenue and re-election prospects elsewhere but this seems far fetched
even for you!

How would you stop it 'from inside'?

By gathering support from like minded other members.

Doesn't work like that in the EU where its unelected bureaucrats that decide
policy.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:31:48 +1000, jeikppkywk, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:


Doesn't work like that in the EU where its unelected bureaucrats that decide
policy.

If someone wanted an asshole's opinion, they'd have farted, you trolling
senile asshole!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 11:53, michael adams wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 09:31, michael adams wrote:
"Norman Wells" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 08:55, tim... wrote:

we have already published our proposed scale of charges (Norman
probably knows where
it is)

and, from examples that have been discussed, for many items the
tariffs are much
lower than EU tariffs

It's he

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...exit-published

Those tarriffs are for imports. Which can indeed be set by the UK Govt.

Where are the UK Govt projections of the tarriffs likely to be imposed
on UK exports ?

Have they been published anywhere ?

They are the tariffs each country applies to imports of any goods.
You'll have to look
them up on a country-by-country basis.

But why should anyone have to look them up ?

To find out what they are of course, and to work out how much extra it it
will cost the consumers of their products in those countries.

It's not that hard.

The Govt are falling over themselves to publish the "good news" - hurrah
we're going to abolish tarriffs on imports so everything is going to be
cheaper

No, what it's said is that there won't be tariffs applied to 83% of all
the goods we import.

But are strangely silent on the tarriffs the RoW may impose on our
exports which
may render them uncompeteive. Don't you worry your pretty little heads
about
those - or look them up if you can find out where to look.

Exporters have to at the moment for exports to anywhere outside the EU.
One assumes they're big enough and ugly enough to do it, and don't need
their hands holding all the time. They're supposed to be businessmen for
goodness sake. It goes with the territory.

The level of complacency you show on this matter is astonishing and
leads one to wonder if you actually live in the real world at all.

It doesn't involve complacency at all.

You do realise I take it that come Oct 31st entire industries, firms
large and small
along with farmers etc are going to have to rethink their entire strategy
as to what
they do and how they go about it in respect of 43% of the UK's exports ?
Which in some cases may well be 100% of their exports.

No, they just have to look at the tariffs the EU imposes, and work out how
much extra, if anything, it's going to cost the consumers of their goods.

And given the lower pound, the buyers of their products wont necessarily
have to pay a higher price for what they export to the EU anyway.

They've had three years since the people of the UK warned them we were
going to leave the EU. There's no excuse for not being prepared.

"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 08/09/2019 22:39, Steve Walker wrote:
On 08/09/2019 10:29, Ian Jackson wrote:
In message , Steve Walker
writes
On 08/09/2019 07:10, Stephen Cole wrote:




Whats the point of all of this, Brian? What do you people genuinely
believe were going to gain from all this upheaval and madness?

Freedom to make our own choices, set our own laws, hold our own
government to account for allowing large numbers of immigrants
overloading already limited resources and infrastructure, reduce the
downward pressure on low-end wages.

We don't seem to have any difficulties setting our own laws. Hasn't
Parliament has just set one (subject to Royal assent on Monday)?

Can we decide on whether we want tracking in our new vehicles? Expensive
safety systems that make only a little difference to safety, but render
vehicles uneconomic to repair after only slight damage?

Probably not as it will be uneconomicto produce many variants and get them
through the approvals with fundementally differen designs. Its one thing
swapping an engine or a few body panels, its something else to build a new
car from the ground up.

To reduce or raise import tariffs on certain goods?

Probably, but it depends. Others can raise disputes if they think we are
abussing the WTO system.

At what level VAT should be set?

The UK government has set the VAT rates on everything.
The EU just has a rule that says you can't put VAT on something and then
take it off willynilly.


Whether any VAT is due on particular goods?

The UK government negotiated what we were putting VAT on.
It was the UK government that put VAT on electricity and gas not the EU.

To control immigration?

We might be able to, we can now for immigrants but don't

The UK does actually.

and they are about 60% of the net migration into the UK.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:45:43 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


And given the lower pound

NONE of yours, senile trolling asshole from Oz!

--
Website (from 2007) dedicated to the 85-year-old trolling senile
cretin from Oz:
https://www.pcreview.co.uk/threads/r...d-faq.2973853/

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 08:48:34 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


The UK does actually.

The UK? NONE of yours, senile Ozzie pest!

--
about senile Rot Speed:
"This is like having a conversation with someone with brain damage."
MID:

"tim..." wrote in message
...


"dennis@home" wrote in message
...
On 09/09/2019 12:54, Tim Streater wrote:
In article , Norman Wells
wrote:

On 09/09/2019 11:53, michael adams wrote:

The Govt are falling over themselves to publish the "good news" -
hurrah
we're going to abolish tarriffs on imports so everything is going to
be
cheaper

No, what it's said is that there won't be tariffs applied to 83% of all
the goods we import.

But are strangely silent on the tarriffs the RoW may impose on our
exports
which may render them uncompeteive. Don't you worry your pretty
little
heads about those - or look them up if you can find out where to look.

Exporters have to at the moment for exports to anywhere outside the EU.
One assumes they're big enough and ugly enough to do it, and don't need
their hands holding all the time. They're supposed to be businessmen
for goodness sake. It goes with the territory.

Adams is a dimwit, eh? Only a thickie like him would be unable to
comprehend that such tariffs are already being imposed on goods sold to
RoW. What's so hard about that, eh? Answer, it isn't. So one must
assume he has another agenda. Gosh, I wonder what that could be.


Shame the EU has trade deals with 50 counties and is negotiating with 72
more

you got to be kidding

Fraid not.

The USA can't manage to do more than one at a time,

Thats a lie.

how come the EU can manage 72?

Lots of highly paid shiny bums.

On Tue, 10 Sep 2019 09:53:00 +1000, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:


Shame the EU has trade deals with 50 counties and is negotiating with 72
more

you got to be kidding

Fraid not.

Nobody talked to you, you trolling senile asshole!


--
dennis@home to know-it-all Rot Speed:
"You really should stop commenting on things you know nothing about."
Message-ID:

Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Norman Wells wrote:
You are utterly mad if you think the UK would accept the EU (or
anyone) imposing tariffs on its exports while refraining from doing
so to theirs.

but we are

we have already published our proposed scale of charges (Norman
probably knows where it is)

and, from examples that have been discussed, for many items the
tariffs are much lower than EU tariffs

It's he

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/t...exit-published

Note the word 'temporary'.


You really have no business experience, do you.

You must be the kind of person that pays full price in DFS for a sofa.

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
tim... wrote:
Want to say what it was?

some emission sensor or other

the actual emissions were fine, it was just the sensor that was buggerd

Pattern ones are about £30.

if you know how to the take car apart to change it

otherwise it's a 400 quid garage bill