"Neil Williams" wrote in message
...
On 2016-07-18 11:57:12 +0000, tim... said:

at a 3% mark up

(YMMV - happy to be told where I, someone with irregular income, can get
one that doesn't)

Banks in "profitable business" shocker

At margins of up to 30% - yes I really did see people charging that much
on holiday last week

Only gullible people pay that.

But there are still people who use the dodgy exchanges (the obvious answer
is, otherwise they wouldn't be there, but I can further, I actually watched
them)

The best deal can usually be had by either buying in advance

That cannot work for the whole of your spending, it is impossible to
estimate accurately how much cash you need and you will always need to top
up whilst you are there (or come home with a large under-spend)

in any case pre-booking doesn't get you a good rate for "exotic" currencies
(which in reality means anything except the top dozen currencies, and lots
of currencies not exotic at all)

or using your card in a cash dispenser.

see my previous comment

tim

"Mark Goodge" wrote in message
house.net...
On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 15:01:24 -0000 (UTC), Anna Noyd-Dryver
put finger to keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge wrote:
On Thu, 14 Jul 2016 20:20:09 -0000 (UTC), bob put
finger
to keyboard and typed:

Mark Goodge wrote:

In real life, I think it's likely we will end up as members of EFTA.
The
benefits are useful, and the downsides of belonging are minimal
(membership
carries far fewer obligations than EU membership). Whether we then go
for
EEA membership will depend, I think, on whether or not we can
negotiate a
suitable set of Swiss-style bilateral treaties with the EU or whether
the
only way to get what we want is to join the EEA.

The difficulty is both EEA and EFTA involve paying money to the EU and
accepting free movement of people. An awful lot of people who voted
"leave"
we're under the impression these were the things they were voting to
get
rid of, and will be pretty miffed if they are retained.

EEA membership requires acceptance of the "four freedoms", including
freedom of movement, across the whole of EFTA and the EU. EFTA
membership
alone doesn't. Switzerland has a bilateral treaty with the EU which
includes freedom of movement, but it would be possible not to have it.


The Swiss voted to restrict freedom of movement two years ago but haven't
yet found a way to implement it.

Indeed; they can't do that without renegotiating the treaties which
include
it, because if they simply impose it then the treaties become invalid.
That
doesn't mean it's impossible, simply that the other benefits of the
treties
that would be lost are too important to simply give up on.

If we want the same benefits then we, too, would almost certainly need to
accept freedom of movement, either via EEA membership or a bilateral
treaty. But it's not entirely implausible that the UK, being a
considerably
larger, richer and more populous country than Switzerland, can either do
without if that's what it takes, or negotiate a better deal to begin with.

Precisely :-)

tim

wrote in message
...
In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 05:29:11 -0500,
wrote:

In article ,
(Optimist) wrote:

On Sun, 17 Jul 2016 23:55:32 +0100, Charles Ellson
wrote:

The money won't be spent on health in England, it will go into
supporting further privatisation of the NHS.

TTIP, which the EU wants to push through, will do that.

The EU TTIP negotiators keep telling us that TTIP will NOT allow public
services to be privatised if EU countries don't want that to happen. Are
you accusing them of lying?

If TTIP is do marvellous why are the details of it kept secret? See
the Youtube video by Irish
independent MEP Luke "Ming" Flanagan which the EU want taken down.

And why have the EU Commission published more about the TTIP deal being
negotiated than about any previous trade deal?

Because it's the only deal that anybody cares about.

Most of the countries that the EU has deals with are the piddly little
countries that no-one has much interest in

AKA the piddly little countries the size of the UK that are too small to
even be bothering to make a deal with, but in fact, they did.

tim

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:16:20 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:22:57 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...



I want us to be able to trade with our European neighbours. But I also
want us to have absolute control of our borders so we can limit the
numbers of non-UK people that we allow in

The UK is not in Schengen, so it has control over its borders already.

No we don't

in Schengen or otherwise, EU rules

EEA rules.

forbid us from excluding entry for
another EU citizen except in very exceptional circumstances. If someone
has
an EU passport,

Valid EEA ID card or passport.

they are in, end of.

The (usual) reasons for wanting to exclude someone:

Failing to produce the above.

Actually, failure to produce the relevant ID document is not a "usual"
reason for waning to exclude someone.

You had better tell the chap/ess who wrote the Border Force's
instruction book. Various reasons for refusal are clearly stated and
are reasonably expected events of which failure to prooduce suitably
ID is a rather basic reason although there is discretion allowed
unlike when a person is subject to a current deportation order or has
convicted of an offence for the punishment has exceeded specified
minimum periods
[https://www.gov.uk/guidance/immigrat...s-for-refusal]

Whilst it is true that border control go to great lengths to ensure that
people without documentation don't actually turn up on their doorstep
(because it is expensive to deal with), if someone does manage it, then that
is not a prima facia reason to exclude them.

"Grounds on which entry clearance or leave to enter the United Kingdom
should normally be refused
(8) failure by a person arriving in the United Kingdom to furnish the
Immigration Officer with such information as may be required for the
purpose of deciding whether he requires leave to enter and, if so,
whether and on what terms leave should be given;"

There are a (large) set of individuals who do have a, de facto, right to
enter the UK and if you can satisfy border control that you are such a
person they will let you in, lack of documentation notwithstanding.

tim

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 18:34:45 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"David Walters" wrote in message
.. .
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:41:26 +0100, tim...
wrote:
Oh so the company that refurbishes antique mercury-based scientific
instruments didn't have to close its operation because the EU banned the
sale of these instruments, then?

Do you have a source for that? The 2007 press
release I've found says antiques are exmpted:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...070706IPR08897

Is there a more recent ban?

No, there isn't

the exception applies to items sold in their current state of working-ness
(sorry can't find a real word for that)

once they go wrong the rules forbid the mechanise from being repaired using
historic components, they have to be left not working or repaired with a
non-mercury based device.

who the hell wants the latter in an antique device?

There are plenty of antique items which collectors are happy to
possess without using them for their original purpose. Do ****pot
collectors usually insist on using their treasures ? Do collectors of
Maori warclubs moan because they can't go down the high street and
**** the locals with them ?

tim... wrote:

"David Walters" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:41:26 +0100, tim...
wrote:
Oh so the company that refurbishes antique mercury-based scientific
instruments didn't have to close its operation because the EU banned the
sale of these instruments, then?

Do you have a source for that? The 2007 press
release I've found says antiques are exmpted:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/...070706IPR08897

Is there a more recent ban?

No, there isn't

the exception applies to items sold in their current state of working-ness
(sorry can't find a real word for that)

once they go wrong the rules forbid the mechanise from being repaired using
historic components, they have to be left not working or repaired with a
non-mercury based device.

who the hell wants the latter in an antique device?


"The ban covers only the sale of new devices. Existing instruments can
still be repaired or bought and sold second-hand."

[...]

"Another Parliament amendment accepted by Council lays down that mercury
measuring devices may be traded if they are more than 50 years old, since
they are to be classified as antiques or cultural goods. "


Anna Noyd-Dryver

"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 09:16:20 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Charles Ellson" wrote in message
. ..
On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 11:22:57 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:


"Wolfgang Schwanke" wrote in message
...



I want us to be able to trade with our European neighbours. But I
also
want us to have absolute control of our borders so we can limit the
numbers of non-UK people that we allow in

The UK is not in Schengen, so it has control over its borders already.

No we don't

in Schengen or otherwise, EU rules

EEA rules.

forbid us from excluding entry for
another EU citizen except in very exceptional circumstances. If someone
has
an EU passport,

Valid EEA ID card or passport.

they are in, end of.

The (usual) reasons for wanting to exclude someone:

Failing to produce the above.

Actually, failure to produce the relevant ID document is not a "usual"
reason for waning to exclude someone.

You had better tell the chap/ess who wrote the Border Force's
instruction book. Various reasons for refusal are clearly stated and
are reasonably expected events of which failure to prooduce suitably
ID is a rather basic reason although there is discretion allowed

Think about how that works in practice

you have a person in front of you who has "lost" his ID

you refuse him entry and insist that the carrier return him to his point of
origin

he gets the

stands in front of border control tells them that he has lost his ID, they
refuse him entry and insist that the carrier return him to his point of
origin

He gets there, stands in front of border control, tells them he has lost his
ID

......

tim

In message , at 18:30:37 on Mon, 18 Jul
2016, tim... remarked:
It's every much the same sort of thing: banning a commodity because
it's harmful/unethical or whatever.

There is a mile of difference between unethical and harmful, especially
when in normal use the item isn't harmful at all, it's only harmful if
it's abused.

Ivory hunting is harmful to elephants.

The reason I mentioned that one example (rather than say a pesticide)
is that sufficiently old examples have grandfather rights. Which you
might be suggesting doesn't apply to mercury instruments??

The grandfather rights to antique mercury based instruments apply to
unrepaired ones (whether still working or otherwise).

as soon as they (the mechanism) is newly repaired they have to follow
the same rules as newly made, which means that their sale is banned.

Cite? If true, I agree; but I've never come across a situation that a
repaired grandfathered item is suddenly ungrandfathered.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 18:29:03 on Mon, 18 Jul
2016, Anna Noyd-Dryver remarked:
"Another Parliament amendment accepted by Council lays down that mercury
measuring devices may be traded if they are more than 50 years old, since
they are to be classified as antiques or cultural goods. "

Exactly like ivory then.
--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Neil Williams) wrote:

On 2016-07-18 11:32:04 +0000, said:

Ah! The old British Imperial arrogance! The EU has plenty of trading
opportunities without the UK and can afford to be hard bon us as we can
afford to be hard on them, nearly 10 times the size.

I voted Remain, but even given that, if they impose *punitive*
tariffs they are selfish idiots barely worse than a child throwing
toys out of their pram.

They won't impose tariffs. They will just refuse to accept British demands
if they are as diplomatic as Boris Johnson and David Davis.

--
Colin Rosenstiel