On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 01:19:55 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:09:31 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:55:36 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:02:18 on
Sun, 13 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

So for example, if we automatically adopt the Status Quo of banning the
trade in "abnormally curved" bananas and the expression "abnormally
curved" gets an ECJ ruling changing its interpretation, we could end up
in a very messy situation trying to (re)export green[1] bananas to the
EU.

[1] It only applies to green ones.

All exports have to comply with the standards in the customer's
country. For example you wouldn't
be able to sell domestic electrical appliance in the USA which
require the UK voltage.

One of the main points about the single market is that if it's legal in
the UK it's legal all over the EU. Splitting that harmony will cost us
money.

But UK exports more by value to non-EU countries than to the EU.

What's the ratio for consumer items, in other words exclude the things
sold to industry like aircraft engines.

Why exclude aircraft engines?

Because they are not designed around consumer-protection rules.

So you don't mind if planes fall out of the sky?


Do you really expect the rest of the world to bring their laws into
line with the EU?

You are missing the point. If your business is mainly domestic, selling
things which pass the UK regs, then at the moment you can expand your
market to the whole EU without a second thought (or any redesign,
re-testing etc).

A red herring - manufacturers in China, Japan, S Korea don't have any
problems in reaching standards in EU, USA etc. already.

They are the multi-billion manufacturers. A lot of trade is from much
smaller companies.

Not true. Much of the goods we but from abroad are from small firms.


EU rules tend not to protect consumers but protect producers from
completion e.g. tariffs on food imports, food supplements having to be
tested like drugs, standards for hoists in care homes which only some
manufacturers can produce, banning barometers containing mercury but
not lightbulbs,

An easy target at first sight but a progressing matter. Incandescent
lamps involve the greatest production of mercury at the stage of
electricity production. CFLs have some mercury in them but not in the
form of "raw" mercury. CFLs will themselves be overtaken where
suitable by the use of LED lighting and other developments.

Mercury released into environment from disposal of dead CFLs all the time whereas mercury barometers
go on for donkeys' years.


limits on power usage of vacuum cleaners and kettles.
Consumers will be better off without many of them.

You think e.g. the USA presented as a glorious example by Brexiteers
always has slacker requirements ?

What are you on about? Who is talking about USA? UK consumers should have choice. Why should we
only be able to buy feeble vacuum cleaners and slow kettles?

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 08:15:31 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 01:19:55 +0000, Charles Ellson wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:09:31 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:55:36 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 10:02:18 on
Sun, 13 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

So for example, if we automatically adopt the Status Quo of banning the
trade in "abnormally curved" bananas and the expression "abnormally
curved" gets an ECJ ruling changing its interpretation, we could end up
in a very messy situation trying to (re)export green[1] bananas to the
EU.

[1] It only applies to green ones.

All exports have to comply with the standards in the customer's
country. For example you wouldn't
be able to sell domestic electrical appliance in the USA which
require the UK voltage.

One of the main points about the single market is that if it's legal in
the UK it's legal all over the EU. Splitting that harmony will cost us
money.

But UK exports more by value to non-EU countries than to the EU.

What's the ratio for consumer items, in other words exclude the things
sold to industry like aircraft engines.

Why exclude aircraft engines?

Because they are not designed around consumer-protection rules.

So you don't mind if planes fall out of the sky?


Do you really expect the rest of the world to bring their laws into
line with the EU?

You are missing the point. If your business is mainly domestic, selling
things which pass the UK regs, then at the moment you can expand your
market to the whole EU without a second thought (or any redesign,
re-testing etc).

A red herring - manufacturers in China, Japan, S Korea don't have any
problems in reaching standards in EU, USA etc. already.

They are the multi-billion manufacturers. A lot of trade is from much
smaller companies.

Not true. Much of the goods we but from abroad are from small firms.


EU rules tend not to protect consumers but protect producers from
completion e.g. tariffs on food imports, food supplements having to be
tested like drugs, standards for hoists in care homes which only some
manufacturers can produce, banning barometers containing mercury but
not lightbulbs,

An easy target at first sight but a progressing matter. Incandescent
lamps involve the greatest production of mercury at the stage of
electricity production. CFLs have some mercury in them but not in the
form of "raw" mercury. CFLs will themselves be overtaken where
suitable by the use of LED lighting and other developments.

Mercury released into environment from

improper

disposal of dead CFLs all the time whereas mercury barometers
go on for donkeys' years.

Both being well down the last after electricity production and
industrial sources. CFL mercury is likely to be to soil in landfill
rather than the atmosphere thus in one sense returning to where it
came from; the main sources OTOH put it into the atmosphere. There is
more atmospheric mercury produced by dentistry than by CFLs -
http://ec.europa.eu/health/scientifi...onment.htm#3p0
and individual breakages of CFLs are not regarded as a significant
risk. Even nuclear power probably does its bit with mining of uranium
releasing mercury to the environment.


limits on power usage of vacuum cleaners and kettles.
Consumers will be better off without many of them.

You think e.g. the USA presented as a glorious example by Brexiteers
always has slacker requirements ?

What are you on about? Who is talking about USA?

UK consumers should have choice.

There's plenty of it.

Why should we
only be able to buy feeble vacuum cleaners and slow kettles?

We're not. Try buying better-designed vacuum cleaners and don't put
too much water in your kettle.

In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 01:19:55 +0000, Charles Ellson
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:09:31 +0000, Optimist
wrote:

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 10:55:36 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 10:02:18
on Sun, 13 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

limits on power usage of vacuum cleaners and kettles.
Consumers will be better off without many of them.

You think e.g. the USA presented as a glorious example by Brexiteers
always has slacker requirements ?

What are you on about? Who is talking about USA? UK consumers
should have choice. Why should we
only be able to buy feeble vacuum cleaners and slow kettles?

Except they aren't. What matters is that they are designed to use energy
efficiently in which case they don't need the extra power to be as
effective. Look at the shape of modern kettles compared to what they used to
be.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:36:17 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/11/2016 09:28, tim... wrote:
Oh come on

There are Remoanser claiming that the EU will give us the worst deal
possible, just out of spite, even though doing so will hurt them more
than us.

Can't you do anything but come up with childish insults?

"Remoaner" is an insult? I think it sums them up perfectly. A bunch of childish
entitled self regarding fools who seem to think the votes of the "little people"
are worth less than their own and that the result should be disregarded for
the sake of "the 48%" as if they're some kind of needy special interest group.
Its beyond pathetic especially as if the vote had gone the other way do you
honestly think they'd give a flying **** about the people who wanted to leave?

--
Spud

On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 09:28:58 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
Wrong, it's a big fat zero by leaving.

Irrelevant

The people who voted leave are completely disinterested in changing the EU.

It's only the people who voted remain because they believed "stay in to
change it" who care

And they (appear to be) a sizable number.

There are a lot of delusional people in this country. One can only hope this
is the beginning of the end of the whole EU farce and it slowly falls apart.
Given that Poland is straining against the EU leash and a Kremlin backed
candidate looks like he's going to win the Bulgarian presidency I suspect if
it goes it'll go in eastern europe first.

--
Spud

On 14/11/2016 09:37, d wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:36:17 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/11/2016 09:28, tim... wrote:
Oh come on

There are Remoanser claiming that the EU will give us the worst deal
possible, just out of spite, even though doing so will hurt them more
than us.

Can't you do anything but come up with childish insults?

"Remoaner" is an insult? I think it sums them up perfectly. A bunch of childish
entitled self regarding fools who seem to think the votes of the "little people"
are worth less than their own and that the result should be disregarded for
the sake of "the 48%" as if they're some kind of needy special interest group.
Its beyond pathetic especially as if the vote had gone the other way do you
honestly think they'd give a flying **** about the people who wanted to leave?


My point made.


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

"Arthur Figgis" wrote in message
.. .
On 13/11/2016 09:28, tim... wrote:


There are Remoanser claiming that the EU will give us the worst deal
possible, just out of spite, even though doing so will hurt them more
than us.

Isn't the argument that the EU would need to give bad deal simply for its
own self-preservation? If it give a good deal, various other countries
might start getting ideas too.

That's the theory

but the reality is there is no queue of countries looking to leave if
Britain gets an OK deal.

And a bad deal for the UK is also a bad deal for the EU. If could be
devastating for Ireland who might be pushed to the out door by the
consequences.

The British europhile idea that Continental politics is like some kind of
giant LibDem conference (with a couple of dodgy French and Dutch people
being ignored on the sidelines) may not be entirely realistic.

I'm not sure what the consequences of believing that are supposed to be,
even if I did :-)

tim

On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 09:48:23 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 14/11/2016 09:37, d wrote:
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 12:36:17 +0000
Graeme Wall wrote:
On 13/11/2016 09:28, tim... wrote:
Oh come on

There are Remoanser claiming that the EU will give us the worst deal
possible, just out of spite, even though doing so will hurt them more
than us.

Can't you do anything but come up with childish insults?

"Remoaner" is an insult? I think it sums them up perfectly. A bunch of
childish
entitled self regarding fools who seem to think the votes of the "little
people"
are worth less than their own and that the result should be disregarded for
the sake of "the 48%" as if they're some kind of needy special interest
group.
Its beyond pathetic especially as if the vote had gone the other way do you
honestly think they'd give a flying **** about the people who wanted to
leave?


My point made.

When you actually make a valid point as opposed to some phoney indignation do
get in touch.

--
Spud

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
news
On 13/11/2016 09:28, tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
news
On 12/11/2016 10:38, tim... wrote:

wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:19:29 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
And I honestly don't what the calls for a referendum on the result
of the
negotiations is trying to achieve. If that referendum votes "no"
we'll be
exiting (because that's inevitable) with a blank sheet of paper as
an
agreement.

The people asking for it are Remoaners who seem to think that the
alternative option will be "staying in"

Isn't it the Libdems calling for it? Its the kind of moronic thing
they'd do
but of course its coupled with the general remoaner attitude that
somehow the
votes of those who voted Brexit are worth less than their own because
they
delude themselves into thinking that Brexiters are either stupid
and/or ill
informed, didn't really know what they were doing and that only
they, The
Remainers (cue angelic choir), have the gift of True Sight. Of course
this
naive dismissive arrogance common to the liberal elite and student
activists
is why we got Brexit and Trump just won.

I particularly love one of the favourite Remaoner arguments for
remaining in
the EU - "If we'd stayed in we could have changed it". Yes, because
we've had
so much success doing that in the last 40 years haven't we.

And what's more, if we back out now, having actually voted to leave our
chances of shaping the EU along the lines that we prefer in the future
will be reduced to a big fat zero.

Wrong, it's a big fat zero by leaving.

Irrelevant

The people who voted leave are completely disinterested in changing the
EU.

It's only the people who voted remain because they believed "stay in to
change it" who care

And they (appear to be) a sizable number.

They are the ones disadvantaged by up crawling back after having decided
to leave.

The EU autocrats, who have so far backed off from the most extreme of
their measures because they were worried that it might "encourage" the
Brits will leave will say to themselves "they are more scared of
leaving
than we are of them doing so" so we can do whatever we like and they'll
remain members regardless.

For us, the worst of all worlds. by a mile, IMHO


More scare-mongering.

Oh come on

There are Remoanser claiming that the EU will give us the worst deal
possible, just out of spite, even though doing so will hurt them more
than us.

Can't you do anything but come up with childish insults?

where's the insult?

On that basis that will damned well be fully motivated to give us the
worst deal possible when it doesn't harm them on jot. So why wouldn't
they? - I know I bloody well word, and I'm a considerate guy (often very
much to my disadvantage).


You hide it extremely well.

I'm argumentative

but as a negotiator I am considerate

tim

On 14/11/2016 10:32, tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
news
On 13/11/2016 09:28, tim... wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
news On 12/11/2016 10:38, tim... wrote:

wrote in message
news On Fri, 11 Nov 2016 14:19:29 -0000
"tim..." wrote:
"Roland Perry" wrote in message
And I honestly don't what the calls for a referendum on the result
of the
negotiations is trying to achieve. If that referendum votes "no"
we'll be
exiting (because that's inevitable) with a blank sheet of paper
as an
agreement.

The people asking for it are Remoaners who seem to think that the
alternative option will be "staying in"

Isn't it the Libdems calling for it? Its the kind of moronic thing
they'd do
but of course its coupled with the general remoaner attitude that
somehow the
votes of those who voted Brexit are worth less than their own because
they
delude themselves into thinking that Brexiters are either stupid
and/or ill
informed, didn't really know what they were doing and that only
they, The
Remainers (cue angelic choir), have the gift of True Sight. Of course
this
naive dismissive arrogance common to the liberal elite and student
activists
is why we got Brexit and Trump just won.

I particularly love one of the favourite Remaoner arguments for
remaining in
the EU - "If we'd stayed in we could have changed it". Yes, because
we've had
so much success doing that in the last 40 years haven't we.

And what's more, if we back out now, having actually voted to leave
our
chances of shaping the EU along the lines that we prefer in the future
will be reduced to a big fat zero.

Wrong, it's a big fat zero by leaving.

Irrelevant

The people who voted leave are completely disinterested in changing
the EU.

It's only the people who voted remain because they believed "stay in to
change it" who care

And they (appear to be) a sizable number.

They are the ones disadvantaged by up crawling back after having decided
to leave.

The EU autocrats, who have so far backed off from the most extreme of
their measures because they were worried that it might "encourage" the
Brits will leave will say to themselves "they are more scared of
leaving
than we are of them doing so" so we can do whatever we like and
they'll
remain members regardless.

For us, the worst of all worlds. by a mile, IMHO


More scare-mongering.

Oh come on

There are Remoanser claiming that the EU will give us the worst deal
possible, just out of spite, even though doing so will hurt them more
than us.

Can't you do anything but come up with childish insults?

where's the insult?

Stupid names


--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.