I see some food in the shops is now marked 'Not for EU'. I assume this
is to appeal to the Brexit and Reform types. I am wondering what needs
to be done during manufacture to achieve the cherished 'Not for EU'
status. Is it possible just to label it as 'Not for EU' for marketing purposes, or does the product have to be differentiated in some way?
:-) :-) :-)
On 16/01/2025 09:58, Scott wrote:
I see some food in the shops is now marked 'Not for EU'. I assume this
is to appeal to the Brexit and Reform types. I am wondering what needs
to be done during manufacture to achieve the cherished 'Not for EU'
status. Is it possible just to label it as 'Not for EU' for marketing purposes, or does the product have to be differentiated in some way?
:-) :-) :-)
More like not do things. Totally stupid. Bought some Italian Parma Ham
in M&S. Produce of Italy, Labelled not for EU.
Dave
I see some food in the shops is now marked 'Not for EU'. I assume this
is to appeal to the Brexit and Reform types. I am wondering what needs
to be done during manufacture to achieve the cherished 'Not for EU'
status. Is it possible just to label it as 'Not for EU' for marketing purposes, or does the product have to be differentiated in some way?
:-) :-) :-)
On 16/01/2025 09:58, Scott wrote:
I see some food in the shops is now marked 'Not for EU'. I assume this
is to appeal to the Brexit and Reform types. I am wondering what needs
to be done during manufacture to achieve the cherished 'Not for EU'
status. Is it possible just to label it as 'Not for EU' for marketing purposes, or does the product have to be differentiated in some way?
:-) :-) :-)
More like not do things. Totally stupid. Bought some Italian Parma Ham
in M&S. Produce of Italy, Labelled not for EU.
With foot and mouth in Germany,Bless their marvellous EU hygiene standards.
On 16/01/2025 10:51, Theo wrote:
With foot and mouth in Germany,Bless their marvellous EU hygiene standards.
On 16/01/2025 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2025 10:51, Theo wrote:
With foot and mouth in Germany,Bless their marvellous EU hygiene standards.
So stringent that horse meat was being sold as beef, without anyone
catching it for some time!
In article <vman40$3es0l$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 09:58, Scott wrote:
I see some food in the shops is now marked 'Not for EU'. I assume this
is to appeal to the Brexit and Reform types. I am wondering what needs
to be done during manufacture to achieve the cherished 'Not for EU'
status. Is it possible just to label it as 'Not for EU' for marketing
purposes, or does the product have to be differentiated in some way?
:-) :-) :-)
More like not do things. Totally stupid. Bought some Italian Parma Ham
in M&S. Produce of Italy, Labelled not for EU.
Dave
I suspect M&S do that so as not to have a separate system for NI.
On 16/01/2025 12:30, charles wrote:
In article <vmas5m$3g7tr$1@dont-email.me>,
SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2025 10:51, Theo wrote:
With foot and mouth in Germany,Bless their marvellous EU hygiene standards.
So stringent that horse meat was being sold as beef, without anyone
catching it for some time!
and some Austrian wine contained a poisonous alcohol.
I think the system expects people to obey the rules. The idea that people would cheat never occured to anybody - except the cheats.
That was 40 years ago!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Austrian_diethylene_glycol_wine_scandal
On Thu, 16 Jan 25 11:08:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <vman40$3es0l$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 09:58, Scott wrote:
I see some food in the shops is now marked 'Not for EU'. I assume this >> > is to appeal to the Brexit and Reform types. I am wondering what needs >> > to be done during manufacture to achieve the cherished 'Not for EU'
status. Is it possible just to label it as 'Not for EU' for marketing
purposes, or does the product have to be differentiated in some way?
:-) :-) :-)
More like not do things. Totally stupid. Bought some Italian Parma Ham
in M&S. Produce of Italy, Labelled not for EU.
Dave
I suspect M&S do that so as not to have a separate system for NI.
Yes, mine was M&S too. What you are saying it that it can be done for administrative convenience with no inherent unsuitability for the EU
market?
Will the goods in the EU say 'Not for UK' :-)
On 16/01/2025 12:30, charles wrote:
In article <vmas5m$3g7tr$1@dont-email.me>,
   SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2025 10:51, Theo wrote:
With foot and mouth in Germany,Bless their marvellous EU hygiene standards.
So stringent that horse meat was being sold as beef, without anyone
catching it for some time!
and some Austrian wine contained a poisonous alcohol.
I think the system expects people to obey the rules. The idea that people
would cheat never occured to anybody - except the cheats.
That was 40 years ago!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1985_Austrian_diethylene_glycol_wine_scandal
John
In article <ufuhojlqqj1j7s49t16jmef38g5k8t610e@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 25 11:08:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <vman40$3es0l$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 09:58, Scott wrote:
I see some food in the shops is now marked 'Not for EU'. I assume this >>>>> is to appeal to the Brexit and Reform types. I am wondering what needs >>>>> to be done during manufacture to achieve the cherished 'Not for EU'
status. Is it possible just to label it as 'Not for EU' for marketing >>>>> purposes, or does the product have to be differentiated in some way? >>>>> :-) :-) :-)
More like not do things. Totally stupid. Bought some Italian Parma Ham >>>> in M&S. Produce of Italy, Labelled not for EU.
Dave
I suspect M&S do that so as not to have a separate system for NI.
Yes, mine was M&S too. What you are saying it that it can be done for
administrative convenience with no inherent unsuitability for the EU
market?
Will the goods in the EU say 'Not for UK' :-)
why should they? It's just that goods sold in NI may not be sold in the south.
In article <ufuhojlqqj1j7s49t16jmef38g5k8t610e@4ax.com>,
Scott <newsgroups@gefion.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 25 11:08:02 UTC, charles <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <vman40$3es0l$1@dont-email.me>,
David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 09:58, Scott wrote:
I see some food in the shops is now marked 'Not for EU'. I assume this >> >> > is to appeal to the Brexit and Reform types. I am wondering what needs >> >> > to be done during manufacture to achieve the cherished 'Not for EU'
status. Is it possible just to label it as 'Not for EU' for marketing >> >> > purposes, or does the product have to be differentiated in some way?
:-) :-) :-)
More like not do things. Totally stupid. Bought some Italian Parma Ham
in M&S. Produce of Italy, Labelled not for EU.
Dave
I suspect M&S do that so as not to have a separate system for NI.
Yes, mine was M&S too. What you are saying it that it can be done for
administrative convenience with no inherent unsuitability for the EU
market?
Will the goods in the EU say 'Not for UK' :-)
why should they? It's just that goods sold in NI may not be sold in the >south.
Will the goods in the EU say 'Not for UK' 🙂
Of course not. I think little has changed coming from the EU. Apart from
some temporary restrictions on Pork and Honey you can bring most things
from the EU to the UK..
On 16/01/2025 15:42, David Wade wrote:
Will the goods in the EU say 'Not for UK' 🙂
Of course not. I think little has changed coming from the EU. Apart from
some temporary restrictions on Pork and Honey you can bring most things
from the EU to the UK..
WE are happy to ease restrictions on our side. its the EU playing dog in
the manger. We never set out to punish the EU.
In article <vmas5m$3g7tr$1@dont-email.me>,
SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2025 10:51, Theo wrote:
With foot and mouth in Germany,Bless their marvellous EU hygiene standards.
So stringent that horse meat was being sold as beef, without anyone
catching it for some time!
and some Austrian wine contained a poisonous alcohol.
I think the system expects people to obey the rules. The idea that people would cheat never occured to anybody - except the cheats.
On 16 Jan 2025 at 17:17:45 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 15:42, David Wade wrote:
Will the goods in the EU say 'Not for UK' 🙂
Of course not. I think little has changed coming from the EU. Apart from >>> some temporary restrictions on Pork and Honey you can bring most things
from the EU to the UK..
WE are happy to ease restrictions on our side. its the EU playing dog in
the manger. We never set out to punish the EU.
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anything at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a hard border there whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck to that position. Let the EU
put one there, if it's so important to them.
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anything at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a hard border there whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck to that position. Let the EU
put one there, if it's so important to them.
On 16/01/2025 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anything
at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a
hard border there whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck
to that position. Let the EU put one there, if it's so important to
them.
The irish government threatened fire breathing dragons and other
apocryphal monstrosities if they had to put a border up and
complained it contravened the GFA,.
May meekly accepted it and it wasn't possible to get rid of it again
On 16/01/2025 12:30, charles wrote:
In article <vmas5m$3g7tr$1@dont-email.me>,
   SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2025 10:51, Theo wrote:
With foot and mouth in Germany,Bless their marvellous EU hygiene standards.
So stringent that horse meat was being sold as beef, without anyone
catching it for some time!
and some Austrian wine contained a poisonous alcohol.
That was a long time ago, IIRC. ISTR that they finally sold much of it
to an airport for de-icing runways.
I think the system expects people to obey the rules. The idea that people
would cheat never occured to anybody - except the cheats.
Like most things - tighten regulations and laws, in ways that harm the
public and expect the criminals to follow the rules. When they don't,
the tighten the rules more!
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:03:37 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anything
at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a
hard border there whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck
to that position. Let the EU put one there, if it's so important to
them.
The irish government threatened fire breathing dragons and other
apocryphal monstrosities if they had to put a border up and
complained it contravened the GFA,.
May meekly accepted it and it wasn't possible to get rid of it again
The problem is that the Republic wants to be in two different customs
unions at the same time. The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
The Republic should have left at the same time as we did, but that
would have made it look weak.
On 16/01/2025 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
On 16 Jan 2025 at 17:17:45 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 15:42, David Wade wrote:
Will the goods in the EU say 'Not for UK' 🙂
Of course not. I think little has changed coming from the EU. Apart from >>>> some temporary restrictions on Pork and Honey you can bring most things >>>> from the EU to the UK..
WE are happy to ease restrictions on our side. its the EU playing dog in >>> the manger. We never set out to punish the EU.
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anything at all in
re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a hard border there
whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck to that position. Let the EU
put one there, if it's so important to them.
We didn't. The EU said it WOULD place a hard border there, and in the
Good Friday agreement we said we would ensure there was no hard border,
In article <20250116205857.74abba50@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>,
Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:03:37 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to
anything at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not
be putting a hard border there whatever happened, so we should
have simply stuck to that position. Let the EU put one there,
if it's so important to them.
The irish government threatened fire breathing dragons and other apocryphal monstrosities if they had to put a border up and
complained it contravened the GFA,.
May meekly accepted it and it wasn't possible to get rid of it
again
The problem is that the Republic wants to be in two different
customs unions at the same time. The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU
was to make importing and exporting to and from outside the EU
difficult.
The Republic should have left at the same time as we did, but that
would have made it look weak.
and also, the EU was good for their economy
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:03:37 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anything
at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a
hard border there whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck
to that position. Let the EU put one there, if it's so important to
them.
The irish government threatened fire breathing dragons and other
apocryphal monstrosities if they had to put a border up and
complained it contravened the GFA,.
May meekly accepted it and it wasn't possible to get rid of it again
The problem is that the Republic wants to be in two different customs
unions at the same time. The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
The Republic should have left at the same time as we did, but that
would have made it look weak.
On 16/01/2025 20:58, Joe wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:03:37 +0000 The Natural PhilosopherIndeed. Or they could have just said 'we need to renegotiate the GFA
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:The problem is that the Republic wants to be in two different customs
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anything
at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a
hard border there whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck
to that position. Let the EU put one there, if it's so important to
them.
The irish government threatened fire breathing dragons and other
apocryphal monstrosities if they had to put a border up and complained
it contravened the GFA,.
May meekly accepted it and it wasn't possible to get rid of it again
unions at the same time. The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
The Republic should have left at the same time as we did, but that
would have made it look weak.
because that was set up in the context of an arrangement between two EU countries and is now null and void'
Instead the EU used it to force alignment with the EU instead and May
went along with it because she didn't believe in brexit anyway and was
the stupidest cow ever to become prime minister.
Mind you if some public spirited citizen shoots keir starmer, we will
have the ginger nut, who will definitely be worse.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 10:11:01 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2025 20:58, Joe wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:03:37 +0000 The Natural PhilosopherIndeed. Or they could have just said 'we need to renegotiate the GFA
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:The problem is that the Republic wants to be in two different customs
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anything
at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a
hard border there whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck
to that position. Let the EU put one there, if it's so important to
them.
The irish government threatened fire breathing dragons and other
apocryphal monstrosities if they had to put a border up and complained >>>> it contravened the GFA,.
May meekly accepted it and it wasn't possible to get rid of it again
unions at the same time. The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
The Republic should have left at the same time as we did, but that
would have made it look weak.
because that was set up in the context of an arrangement between two EU
countries and is now null and void'
Instead the EU used it to force alignment with the EU instead and May
went along with it because she didn't believe in brexit anyway and was
the stupidest cow ever to become prime minister.
Mind you if some public spirited citizen shoots keir starmer, we will
have the ginger nut, who will definitely be worse.
None of which wasn't foreseen at the time. We had the UKs top brains on
the problem - David Davies, Lord Frost, Boris Johnson personally - to
name a few. People the UK knew, loved and trusted to deliver the best possible deal. It's a bit off that some armchair expert thinks they could have done better.
When someone says "don't go in that cave, there is a bear in it" and
someone goes in the cave and discovers there is a bear in it, is it the
bears fault if they do what bears do ? Or the fucking numpty that thought "Bare ? I don't see any problem there" ?
In article <vmas5m$3g7tr$1@dont-email.me>,
SteveW <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 11:13, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 16/01/2025 10:51, Theo wrote:
With foot and mouth in Germany,Bless their marvellous EU hygiene standards.
So stringent that horse meat was being sold as beef, without anyone
catching it for some time!
and some Austrian wine contained a poisonous alcohol.
I think the system expects people to obey the rules. The idea that people would cheat never occured to anybody - except the cheats.
Sausages in decades past were always made with the bits of
the pig that you would never eat intentionally.
We had the UKs top brains on
the problem - David Davies, Lord Frost, Boris Johnson personally - to
name a few.
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
I remember a pork butcher in Barry where such things and just
about everything else, including complete pigs heads were
on the window slab on sale.
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:17:45 +0000, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:
I remember a pork butcher in Barry where such things and justMy mother used to make delicious pork brawn with a pig's head or pigs trotters. I love kidneys and hearts, pork or lamb. Never tried tripe
about everything else, including complete pigs heads were
on the window slab on sale.
but it was always available in local butchers. I don't think young
people have the cooking skills these days to make use of 'offal'.
On 2025-01-17 19:18, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:17:45 +0000, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
wrote:
I remember a pork butcher in Barry where such things and justMy mother used to make delicious pork brawn with a pig's head or pigs
about everything else, including complete pigs heads were
on the window slab on sale.
trotters. I love kidneys and hearts, pork or lamb. Never tried tripe
but it was always available in local butchers. I don't think young
people have the cooking skills these days to make use of 'offal'.
Why would they?
On 2025-01-17 19:18, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:17:45 +0000, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
I remember a pork butcher in Barry where such things and justMy mother used to make delicious pork brawn with a pig's head or pigs trotters. I love kidneys and hearts, pork or lamb. Never tried tripe
about everything else, including complete pigs heads were
on the window slab on sale.
but it was always available in local butchers. I don't think young
people have the cooking skills these days to make use of 'offal'.
Why would they?
nib <news@ingram-bromley.co.uk> wrote:
On 2025-01-17 19:18, Chris Hogg wrote:
On Fri, 17 Jan 2025 12:17:45 +0000, Andrew <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:
I remember a pork butcher in Barry where such things and justMy mother used to make delicious pork brawn with a pig's head or pigs trotters. I love kidneys and hearts, pork or lamb. Never tried tripe
about everything else, including complete pigs heads were
on the window slab on sale.
but it was always available in local butchers. I don't think young
people have the cooking skills these days to make use of 'offal'.
Why would they?
Because it's cheap, it's nutritious and it's good ecologically to use
the whole animal if your going to eat it.
I'm seeing less availability of kidneys and hearts in Morrisons these
days. Either sold out or not there in the first place.
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU has become much more difficult.
On 16/01/2025 20:58, Joe wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:03:37 +0000Indeed. Or they could have just said 'we need to renegotiate the GFA
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anything
at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a
hard border there whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck
to that position. Let the EU put one there, if it's so important to
them.
The irish government threatened fire breathing dragons and other
apocryphal monstrosities if they had to put a border up and
complained it contravened the GFA,.
May meekly accepted it and it wasn't possible to get rid of it again
The problem is that the Republic wants to be in two different customs
unions at the same time. The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
The Republic should have left at the same time as we did, but that
would have made it look weak.
because that was set up in the context of an arrangement between two EU countries and is now null and void'
Instead the EU used it to force alignment with the EU instead and May
went along with it because she didn't believe in brexit anyway and was
the stupidest cow ever to become prime minister.
Mind you if some public spirited citizen shoots keir starmer, we will
have the ginger nut, who will definitely be worse.
--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.
Sir Roger Scruton
.
On 17 Jan 2025 at 10:11:01, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 20:58, Joe wrote:
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:03:37 +0000Indeed. Or they could have just said 'we need to renegotiate the GFA
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anything
at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a
hard border there whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck
to that position. Let the EU put one there, if it's so important to
them.
The irish government threatened fire breathing dragons and other
apocryphal monstrosities if they had to put a border up and
complained it contravened the GFA,.
May meekly accepted it and it wasn't possible to get rid of it again
The problem is that the Republic wants to be in two different customs
unions at the same time. The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
The Republic should have left at the same time as we did, but that
would have made it look weak.
because that was set up in the context of an arrangement between two EU
countries and is now null and void'
Instead the EU used it to force alignment with the EU instead and May
went along with it because she didn't believe in brexit anyway and was
the stupidest cow ever to become prime minister.
Have you forgotten Liz Truss already?
Mind you if some public spirited citizen shoots keir starmer, we will
have the ginger nut, who will definitely be worse.
--
I was brought up to believe that you should never give offence if you
So you've forgotten your upbringing as well?
can avoid it; the new culture tells us you should always take offence if
you can. There are now experts in the art of taking offence, indeed
whole academic subjects, such as 'gender studies', devoted to it.
Sir Roger Scruton
.
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU has become much more difficult.
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:What else would you expect? If you leave a free trade area it does
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU has
become much more difficult.
seem rather likely that it would become more difficult to export to
countries in that area surely!?
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:What else would you expect? If you leave a free trade area it does
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU has >>> become much more difficult.
seem rather likely that it would become more difficult to export to
countries in that area surely!?
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied and
there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our standards on
food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, or more the case
the the oversight of those standards in the UK being accepted. Overnight
some those standards became unacceptable!
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied and
there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our standards on
food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, or more the case
the the oversight of those standards in the UK being accepted. Overnight
some those standards became unacceptable!
On 17/01/2025 22:10, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:Oh he doesn't want to hear facts.
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU has
become much more difficult.
The EU was set up as a zone (ECSC) to protect European iron and steel
from competition from elsewhere., It started life as, and has always
been, a protection racket. Later on it was to protect the way of life of small French farmers and the right to ingest salmonella as long as it
was locally sourced.
The plan was to give European manufacturers and farmers protected access
to European markets and keep non EU products out of it.
From the first communists infiltrated it as the perfect vehicle to
construct a European superstate, a process which is still ongoing.
It is of course failing abysmally as it nears its target of a
stranglehold bureaucracy.
On 18/01/2025 11:05, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:Of course, Have to punish the Brits! Pour encourager les autres...
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:What else would you expect? If you leave a free trade area it does
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU has >>>> become much more difficult.
seem rather likely that it would become more difficult to export to
countries in that area surely!?
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied and
there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our standards on
food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, or more the case
the the oversight of those standards in the UK being accepted. Overnight
some those standards became unacceptable!
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 11:05:53 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied and
there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our standards on
food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, or more the case
the the oversight of those standards in the UK being accepted. Overnight
some those standards became unacceptable!
Well if the EU update theirs, that will happen.
On 18 Jan 2025 at 11:23:36 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 18/01/2025 11:05, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:Of course, Have to punish the Brits! Pour encourager les autres...
alan_m <junk@admac.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:What else would you expect? If you leave a free trade area it does
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU has >>>>> become much more difficult.
seem rather likely that it would become more difficult to export to
countries in that area surely!?
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied and
there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our standards on
food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, or more the case
the the oversight of those standards in the UK being accepted. Overnight >>> some those standards became unacceptable!
Discourager, Shirley?
On 18/01/2025 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 11:05:53 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied and >>>there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our standards on >>>food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, or more the case >>>the the oversight of those standards in the UK being accepted. Overnight >>>some those standards became unacceptable!
Well if the EU update theirs, that will happen.
I think the real issue is that the EU had tow choices - accept that the UK >was within EU standards, or make it demonstrate with the right paperwork, >that it was. The chose the latter purely as punishment.
You have no idea how bitterly EU people resented Brexit.
On 18 Jan 2025 at 10:30:47 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher" ><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:10, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:Oh he doesn't want to hear facts.
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU has >>>become much more difficult.
The EU was set up as a zone (ECSC) to protect European iron and steel
from competition from elsewhere., It started life as, and has always
been, a protection racket. Later on it was to protect the way of life of >>small French farmers and the right to ingest salmonella as long as it
was locally sourced.
The plan was to give European manufacturers and farmers protected access
to European markets and keep non EU products out of it.
From the first communists infiltrated it as the perfect vehicle to >>construct a European superstate, a process which is still ongoing.
It is of course failing abysmally as it nears its target of a
stranglehold bureaucracy.
The problem these days is judicial overreach, leading to lawyers and judges >becoming unelected policy-makers. The Yanks suffer more from it than us,
but
we're getting there.
On 18/01/2025 in message <vmg762$r7nn$2@dont-email.me> The Natural Philosopher wrote:
On 18/01/2025 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 11:05:53 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied and >>>> there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our standards on >>>> food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, or more the case >>>> the the oversight of those standards in the UK being accepted.
Overnight
some those standards became unacceptable!
Well if the EU update theirs, that will happen.
I think the real issue is that the EU had tow choices - accept that
the UK was within EU standards, or make it demonstrate with the right
paperwork, that it was. The chose the latter purely as punishment.
You have no idea how bitterly EU people resented Brexit.
Presumably it's pure envy, they don't have the guts to do it.
On 18/01/2025 in message <lv1kbsFleeoU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
The problem these days is judicial overreach, leading to lawyers and
judges
becoming unelected policy-makers. The Yanks suffer more from it than
us, but
we're getting there.
Interesting. When I was studying for my insurance qualifications
(admittedly 60 years ago) the ability of judges to extend the law was
put forward as a benefit of the English legal system. We had decent
judges, like Denning, back in the day though.
On 18/01/2025 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
[quoted text muted]
I think the real issue is that the EU had tow choices - accept that the
UK was within EU standards, or make it demonstrate with the right
paperwork, that it was. The chose the latter purely as punishment.
You have no idea how bitterly EU people resented Brexit.
On 18/01/2025 in message <lv1kbsFleeoU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 10:30:47 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher" >><tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:10, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:Oh he doesn't want to hear facts.
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make importing and exporting >>>>>>to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU >>>>has become much more difficult.
The EU was set up as a zone (ECSC) to protect European iron and steel >>>from competition from elsewhere., It started life as, and has always >>>been, a protection racket. Later on it was to protect the way of life
of small French farmers and the right to ingest salmonella as long as
it was locally sourced.
The plan was to give European manufacturers and farmers protected
access to European markets and keep non EU products out of it.
From the first communists infiltrated it as the perfect vehicle to >>>construct a European superstate, a process which is still ongoing.
It is of course failing abysmally as it nears its target of a >>>stranglehold bureaucracy.
The problem these days is judicial overreach, leading to lawyers and
judges becoming unelected policy-makers. The Yanks suffer more from it
than us, but we're getting there.
Interesting. When I was studying for my insurance qualifications
(admittedly 60 years ago) the ability of judges to extend the law was
put forward as a benefit of the English legal system. We had decent
judges, like Denning, back in the day though.
Imagine Brexiteers grumbling about a peculiarly English thing.From the man who says he doesn't give a shit.
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU has become much more difficult.
On 17 Jan 2025 at 10:11:01, The Natural Philosopher<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 20:58, Joe wrote:Have you forgotten Liz Truss already?
On Thu, 16 Jan 2025 20:03:37 +0000Indeed. Or they could have just said 'we need to renegotiate the GFA
The Natural Philosopher<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 16/01/2025 18:08, Tim Streater wrote:The problem is that the Republic wants to be in two different customs
Apropos of this, can anyone explain why we had to agree to anythingThe irish government threatened fire breathing dragons and other
at all in re: Northern Ireland? We said we would not be putting a
hard border there whatever happened, so we should have simply stuck
to that position. Let the EU put one there, if it's so important to
them.
apocryphal monstrosities if they had to put a border up and
complained it contravened the GFA,.
May meekly accepted it and it wasn't possible to get rid of it again
unions at the same time. The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
The Republic should have left at the same time as we did, but that
would have made it look weak.
because that was set up in the context of an arrangement between two EU
countries and is now null and void'
Instead the EU used it to force alignment with the EU instead and May
went along with it because she didn't believe in brexit anyway and was
the stupidest cow ever to become prime minister.
On 18 Jan 2025 at 13:27:03 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The function of judges is, in the case of ambiguity only, to understand Parliament's intention when the Act in question was passed. They have no business "extending" the law. Creating the Supreme Court was a serious
error
On 18/01/2025 in message <lv1kbsFleeoU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 10:30:47 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher"
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:10, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 14:54, Ottavio Caruso wrote:Oh he doesn't want to hear facts.
Le 16/01/2025 à 20:58, Joe a écrit :
The whole point of the EEC/EC/EU was to make
importing and exporting to and from outside the EU difficult.
Bollocks!
Then explain why now that the UK has left the EU exporting to the EU has >>>> become much more difficult.
The EU was set up as a zone (ECSC) to protect European iron and steel
from competition from elsewhere., It started life as, and has always
been, a protection racket. Later on it was to protect the way of life of >>> small French farmers and the right to ingest salmonella as long as it
was locally sourced.
The plan was to give European manufacturers and farmers protected access >>> to European markets and keep non EU products out of it.
From the first communists infiltrated it as the perfect vehicle to
construct a European superstate, a process which is still ongoing.
It is of course failing abysmally as it nears its target of a
stranglehold bureaucracy.
The problem these days is judicial overreach, leading to lawyers and judges >> becoming unelected policy-makers. The Yanks suffer more from it than us,
but
we're getting there.
Interesting. When I was studying for my insurance qualifications
(admittedly 60 years ago) the ability of judges to extend the law was put forward as a benefit of the English legal system. We had decent judges,
like Denning, back in the day though.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 17:53:25 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 13:27:03 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The function of judges is, in the case of ambiguity only, to understand
Parliament's intention when the Act in question was passed. They have no
business "extending" the law. Creating the Supreme Court was a serious
error
Er, so the Law Lords ?
On 18 Jan 2025 at 18:12:12 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 17:53:25 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 13:27:03 GMT, ""Jeff Gaines"" <jgnewsid@outlook.com>
wrote:
[quoted text muted]
The function of judges is, in the case of ambiguity only, to
understand Parliament's intention when the Act in question was passed.
They have no business "extending" the law. Creating the Supreme Court
was a serious error
Er, so the Law Lords ?
Sure, why not. It worked well enough.
The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so overlapping.
On 18 Jan 2025 at 22:30:03 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so
overlapping.
None of their business.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:44:12 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 22:30:03 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so
overlapping.
None of their business.
Well, now we are out of the EU you are free to revert to the old system.
On 18 Jan 2025 at 22:30:03 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so overlapping.
None of their business.
But it will take more than that. Two articles in yesterday's Times with >analysis of why government is suffereing from furring of the arteries
On 19/01/2025 in message <lv4566F39trU1@mid.individual.net> Tim Streater wrote:
But it will take more than that. Two articles in yesterday's Times with
analysis of why government is suffereing from furring of the arteries
Any chance of a link please, sounds interesting!
In article <lv2p5sFr5vlU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 22:30:03 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so
overlapping.
None of their business.
It was when we were members
On 19/01/2025 10:30, charles wrote:
In article <lv2p5sFr5vlU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim StreaterArguably, even then, it wasn't.
<tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 22:30:03 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote: >>
The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so
overlapping.
None of their business.
It was when we were members
There used to be a group of people who looked at proposed legislation to
see that there weren't any unintended consequences. (I've forgotten their title). The posts were abolished quite some time ago. So that's why the courts get involved.
On 19/01/2025 13:30, charles wrote:
There used to be a group of people who looked at proposed legislation to see that there weren't any unintended consequences. (I've forgotten their title). The posts were abolished quite some time ago. So that's why the courts get involved.
The House of Lords. that is - or was - its job.
On 19 Jan 2025 at 10:32:04 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:44:12 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 22:30:03 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so
overlapping.
None of their business.
Well, now we are out of the EU you are free to revert to the old system.
The old system worked well and was quiet and effective.
But it will take more than that. Two articles in yesterday's Times with analysis of why government is suffereing from furring of the arteries -
an inability to do anything about the country's ills, noting that it will affect this government just as much as the previous one. As a cabinet minister said to one of the authors, we can't go any faster (in this
instance regarding measures to reduce the number of people on sick
benefits) because we'll be stopped by the courts. The legal system, IOW, interferes at all levels.
The judges response to this is that they are simply exercising powers
given to them by Parliament. So the article was recommending to Starmer
that Parliament needs to return to those elected, all these powers of blocking and interfering that it has handed over to those who are
unelected.
Otherwise Starmer will find out just what Tory ministers discovered -
that they're in office but not in power, and that the promises they made before the election remain unfulfilled at the next election.
On 19 Jan 2025 at 13:30:02 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <lv4566F39trU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 10:32:04 GMT, "Jethro_uk"
<jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:44:12 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 22:30:03 GMT, "charles"
<charles@candehope.me.uk> wrote:
The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so
overlapping.
None of their business.
Well, now we are out of the EU you are free to revert to the old
system.
The old system worked well and was quiet and effective.
But it will take more than that. Two articles in yesterday's Times
with analysis of why government is suffereing from furring of the
arteries - an inability to do anything about the country's ills,
noting that it will affect this government just as much as the
previous one. As a cabinet minister said to one of the authors, we
can't go any faster (in this instance regarding measures to reduce
the number of people on sick benefits) because we'll be stopped by
the courts. The legal system, IOW, interferes at all levels.
The judges response to this is that they are simply exercising
powers given to them by Parliament. So the article was
recommending to Starmer that Parliament needs to return to those
elected, all these powers of blocking and interfering that it has
handed over to those who are unelected.
Otherwise Starmer will find out just what Tory ministers
discovered - that they're in office but not in power, and that the
promises they made before the election remain unfulfilled at the
next election.
There used to be a group of people who looked at proposed
legislation to see that there weren't any unintended consuences.
(I've forgotten their title). The posts were abolished quite some
time ago. So that's why the courts get involved.
You're confusing a number of things here, ISTM.
1) The people you refer to should still exist. Their job is to ensure
that the language of a Bill is consistent and also I expect, they
look up references to be sure they're correct. So if a Bill says
"This changes the meaning of Clause 5 in the Arseholes Bill of 2020
from this to that", they ensure that it was indeed the Arseholes Bill
of 2020 and not that of 2002. These AFAIK are the parliamentary
clerks.
2) The Lords is supposed to act as a revising Chamber, to highlight unintended consequences of some clause or other, or even to get
uppity and add clauses of their own. How well they do that these days
I know not.
3) The powers that I was referring to and the authors of the articles
were referring to, were *quite* *deliberately* given away to the
courts, prolly by Blair and Co., to fuck up successor governments.
All this bollocks such as you can't now deport Fred because since the
crime he got married and now has children.
In article <lv4566F39trU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 10:32:04 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:44:12 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 22:30:03 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so
overlapping.
None of their business.
Well, now we are out of the EU you are free to revert to the old system.
The old system worked well and was quiet and effective.
But it will take more than that. Two articles in yesterday's Times with
analysis of why government is suffereing from furring of the arteries -
an inability to do anything about the country's ills, noting that it will
affect this government just as much as the previous one. As a cabinet
minister said to one of the authors, we can't go any faster (in this
instance regarding measures to reduce the number of people on sick
benefits) because we'll be stopped by the courts. The legal system, IOW,
interferes at all levels.
The judges response to this is that they are simply exercising powers
given to them by Parliament. So the article was recommending to Starmer
that Parliament needs to return to those elected, all these powers of
blocking and interfering that it has handed over to those who are
unelected.
Otherwise Starmer will find out just what Tory ministers discovered -
that they're in office but not in power, and that the promises they made
before the election remain unfulfilled at the next election.
There used to be a group of people who looked at proposed legislation to
see that there weren't any unintended consuences. (I've forgotten their title). The posts were abolished quite some time ago. So that's why the courts get involved.
On 19 Jan 2025 at 13:30:02 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
In article <lv4566F39trU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
<tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
On 19 Jan 2025 at 10:32:04 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 22:44:12 +0000, Tim Streater wrote:
On 18 Jan 2025 at 22:30:03 GMT, "charles" <charles@candehope.me.uk>
wrote:
The EU wasn't keen on having the Law and the Law makers quite so
overlapping.
None of their business.
Well, now we are out of the EU you are free to revert to the old
system.
The old system worked well and was quiet and effective.
But it will take more than that. Two articles in yesterday's Times
with analysis of why government is suffereing from furring of the
arteries - an inability to do anything about the country's ills,
noting that it will affect this government just as much as the
previous one. As a cabinet minister said to one of the authors, we
can't go any faster (in this instance regarding measures to reduce the
number of people on sick benefits) because we'll be stopped by the
courts. The legal system, IOW, interferes at all levels.
The judges response to this is that they are simply exercising powers
given to them by Parliament. So the article was recommending to
Starmer that Parliament needs to return to those elected, all these
powers of blocking and interfering that it has handed over to those
who are unelected.
Otherwise Starmer will find out just what Tory ministers discovered -
that they're in office but not in power, and that the promises they
made before the election remain unfulfilled at the next election.
There used to be a group of people who looked at proposed legislation
to see that there weren't any unintended consuences. (I've forgotten
their title). The posts were abolished quite some time ago. So that's
why the courts get involved.
You're confusing a number of things here, ISTM.
1) The people you refer to should still exist. Their job is to ensure
that the language of a Bill is consistent and also I expect, they look
up references to be sure they're correct. So if a Bill says "This
changes the meaning of Clause 5 in the Arseholes Bill of 2020 from this
to that", they ensure that it was indeed the Arseholes Bill of 2020 and
not that of 2002. These AFAIK are the parliamentary clerks.
2) The Lords is supposed to act as a revising Chamber, to highlight unintended consequences of some clause or other, or even to get uppity
and add clauses of their own. How well they do that these days I know
not.
3) The powers that I was referring to and the authors of the articles
were referring to, were *quite* *deliberately* given away to the courts, prolly by Blair and Co., to fuck up successor governments. All this
bollocks such as you can't now deport Fred because since the crime he
got married and now has children.
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 11:05:53 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied and
there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our standards on
food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, or more the case
the the oversight of those standards in the UK being accepted. Overnight
some those standards became unacceptable!
Well if the EU update theirs, that will happen.
On 18/01/2025 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 11:05:53 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied and
there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our standards on
food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, or more the
case the the oversight of those standards in the UK being accepted.
Overnight some those standards became unacceptable!
Well if the EU update theirs, that will happen.
Then it would also apply to all their member states as well.
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:08:19 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 18/01/2025 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 11:05:53 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be
applied and there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all
our standards on food safety etc. were identical or accepted by
the EU, or more the case the the oversight of those standards in
the UK being accepted. Overnight some those standards became
unacceptable!
Well if the EU update theirs, that will happen.
Then it would also apply to all their member states as well.
Which is the whole point. At a stroke 27 countries have new
standards. Presumably at 1/27th the cost of each member state having
to draft their own.
Given how standards are integral to business, it seems a snip to me.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:50:22 +0000, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:27:19 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:08:19 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 18/01/2025 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 11:05:53 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:Well if the EU update theirs, that will happen.
[quoted text muted]
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied >>>>>> and there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our
standards on food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU, >>>>>> or more the case the the oversight of those standards in the UK
being accepted. Overnight some those standards became unacceptable! >>>>>
Then it would also apply to all their member states as well.
Which is the whole point. At a stroke 27 countries have new standards.
Presumably at 1/27th the cost of each member state having to draft
their own.
Given how standards are integral to business, it seems a snip to me.
But that also means that an 'improvement' in a standard, 'requested' by
a large EU business, or possibly a few together, can damage tens of
thousands of small businesses in 27 countries at once, to no actual
benefit to anyone.
And don't say it can't happen: the EU has a department to handle
lobbying* efficiently.
"Today lobbying in the European Union is an integral and important part
of decision-making in the EU. From year to year lobbying regulation in
the EU is constantly improving and the number of lobbyists is
increasing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_lobbying
* polite euphemism for bribery and corruption
The UK doesn't have any moral high ground over bribery and corruption
itself. Also it's really inefficient to have to grease 2 sets of palms instead of 1.
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:27:19 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:08:19 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 18/01/2025 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 11:05:53 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied
and there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our
standards on food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the EU,
or more the case the the oversight of those standards in the UK
being accepted. Overnight some those standards became unacceptable!
Well if the EU update theirs, that will happen.
Then it would also apply to all their member states as well.
Which is the whole point. At a stroke 27 countries have new standards.
Presumably at 1/27th the cost of each member state having to draft
their own.
Given how standards are integral to business, it seems a snip to me.
But that also means that an 'improvement' in a standard, 'requested' by
a large EU business, or possibly a few together, can damage tens of
thousands of small businesses in 27 countries at once, to no actual
benefit to anyone.
And don't say it can't happen: the EU has a department to handle
lobbying* efficiently.
"Today lobbying in the European Union is an integral and important part
of decision-making in the EU. From year to year lobbying regulation in
the EU is constantly improving and the number of lobbyists is
increasing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_lobbying
* polite euphemism for bribery and corruption
On 20 Jan 2025 at 11:23:51 GMT, "Jethro_uk" <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com>
wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:50:22 +0000, Joe wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 10:27:19 -0000 (UTC)
Jethro_uk <jethro_uk@hotmailbin.com> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jan 2025 18:08:19 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 18/01/2025 12:13, Jethro_uk wrote:
On Sat, 18 Jan 2025 11:05:53 +0000, alan_m wrote:
On 17/01/2025 22:31, Chris Green wrote:
[quoted text muted]
Yes I agree and accept that additional import taxes may be applied >>>>>>> and there may be extra bureaucracy, but until we left all our
standards on food safety etc. were identical or accepted by the
EU,
or more the case the the oversight of those standards in the UK
being accepted. Overnight some those standards became
unacceptable!
Well if the EU update theirs, that will happen.
Then it would also apply to all their member states as well.
Which is the whole point. At a stroke 27 countries have new
standards.
Presumably at 1/27th the cost of each member state having to draft
their own.
Given how standards are integral to business, it seems a snip to me.
But that also means that an 'improvement' in a standard, 'requested'
by a large EU business, or possibly a few together, can damage tens of
thousands of small businesses in 27 countries at once, to no actual
benefit to anyone.
And don't say it can't happen: the EU has a department to handle
lobbying* efficiently.
"Today lobbying in the European Union is an integral and important
part of decision-making in the EU. From year to year lobbying
regulation in the EU is constantly improving and the number of
lobbyists is increasing."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_lobbying
* polite euphemism for bribery and corruption
The UK doesn't have any moral high ground over bribery and corruption
itself. Also it's really inefficient to have to grease 2 sets of palms
instead of 1.
Interesting that you're so comfortable with palm-greasing.
Note that none of the palm-greasers are elected - and nor are the palm-greasees. In fact no one in the EU decision process is elected.
Which is one of the reasons I voted Leave.
Which is the whole point. At a stroke 27 countries have new standards. Presumably at 1/27th the cost of each member state having to draft their
own.
Given how standards are integral to business, it seems a snip to me.
So you prefer elected British corruption to supposed unelected foreign corruption ? Not quite sure that's a rational stance. Unless you only
speak English.
On 20/01/2025 10:27, Jethro_uk wrote:
Which is the whole point. At a stroke 27 countries have new standards.
Presumably at 1/27th the cost of each member state having to draft their
own.
Given how standards are integral to business, it seems a snip to me.
And it cost little to adopt the same standard if it makes sense to do
so. The true cost of changing any standard is not the cost to the state
but the cost to the individual companies that have to conform be it in Germany, France, the UK, Korea or Mexico.
Why do so many think because of Brexit that the UK has to deliberately
go a different way with regards standards? Many (non-food) standards we
all used to in our daily lives didn't originate in the EU or UK.
On 20/01/2025 15:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
So you prefer elected British corruption to supposed unelected
foreign corruption ? Not quite sure that's a rational stance.
Unless you only speak English.
We got rid of May, We got rid of Boris. We got rid oft Sunak, And we
are working to get rid of Starmer.
Tell me how we (could have) got rid of Ursula-I-wet-my-Pants?
On 20/01/2025 15:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
So you prefer elected British corruption to supposed unelected foreign
corruption ? Not quite sure that's a rational stance. Unless you only
speak English.
We got rid of May, We got rid of Boris. We got rid oft Sunak, And we are working to get rid of Starmer.
Tell me how we (could have) got rid of Ursula-I-wet-my-Pants?
On Mon, 20 Jan 2025 16:34:34 +0000
The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 20/01/2025 15:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
So you prefer elected British corruption to supposed unelected
foreign corruption ? Not quite sure that's a rational stance.
Unless you only speak English.
We got rid of May, We got rid of Boris. We got rid oft Sunak, And we
are working to get rid of Starmer.
Tell me how we (could have) got rid of Ursula-I-wet-my-Pants?
Just wait for her to be jailed over the Pfizer naughtiness...
But yes, government by consent is the alternative to tyranny, and we
didn't have that consent as an EU vassal, sorry, member state.
On 20 Jan 2025 at 16:34:34 GMT, "The Natural Philosopher" <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:
On 20/01/2025 15:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
So you prefer elected British corruption to supposed unelected foreign
corruption ? Not quite sure that's a rational stance. Unless you only
speak English.
We got rid of May, We got rid of Boris. We got rid oft Sunak, And we are
working to get rid of Starmer.
Tell me how we (could have) got rid of Ursula-I-wet-my-Pants?
I'd also be interested to know who selected her, why she was the only candidate, and why, had we still been an EU member, no one in this country would have had a vote on the matter anyway.
On 20/01/2025 15:14, Jethro_uk wrote:
So you prefer elected British corruption to supposed unelected foreign
corruption ? Not quite sure that's a rational stance. Unless you only
speak English.
We got rid of May,
We got rid of Boris.
We got rid oft Sunak,
And we are
working to get rid of Starmer.
Tell me how we (could have) got rid of Ursula-I-wet-my-Pants?
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 12:31:58 |
| Calls: | 10,389 |
| Calls today: | 4 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,878 |
| Posted today: | 1 |