Charles Ellson wrote:
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 ?


LOL

--
Jeremy Double

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 08:32:19 +0100, Optimist
wrote:

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

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 12:14:51 +0100, Optimist
wrote:

On Sat, 16 Jul 2016 08:20:54 +0100, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 15:49:33 on
Fri, 15 Jul 2016, Optimist remarked:
Then the shortfall should be paid by the UK treasury, and deducted from
the amount paid to Brussels.

It's not so simple. Countries are not rewarded with research participation
based on their EU contributions. They are included because their
universities are appropriate participants. We have the best EU universities
and so were included disproportionately; now, knowing we will soon be gone,
our universities are not considered for inclusion in new EU-funded
projects, as their work may not be funded after 2018.

Same answer - fund our OWN universities from the amount we pay in EU contributions.

But the whole £350m(sic) has already been promised to the NHS, or was it
Cornwall, or perhaps Wales.

Our universities are world-class, so it would be foolish of the EU not to co-operate with us as they
do with other non-EU countries. If they decide not to, well, we can co-operate with other countries
instead, their loss not ours.

Regarding NHS expenditure, our EU contributions currently exceed our rebates and grants from the EU
by nearly £10billion a year (see section 9.9 of the "pink book" on the ONS website) so when we leave
the elected government can decide to spend this as it sees fit, e.g. on the NHS.

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 UK government could have chose to exclude the NHS from TTIP but
didn't. They were also one of the driving forces behind TTIP so the EU
may backtrack on it now.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 20:18:19 +0100, Roland Perry
wrote:

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.

Advice such as
https://www.gov.uk/government/upload...5/LIT_7498.pdf
[Mercury in Measuring Devices-Guidance Note-November 2015 (Version 3)]
refers to restrictions of sale of items to the general public not
applying to -
(a) measuring devices more than 50 years old on 3 October
2007;
(b) barometers (except barometers within point (a)) until 3
October 2009.

Whether or not one of those items has been repaired seems not to be
considered.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 16:36:57 +0100, Neil Williams wrote:

On 2016-07-18 13:41:18 +0000, Optimist said:

Look up the Laval case in Sweden.

What, this?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laval_...arefo rbundet


That appears to relate to whether a union could obstruct people being
brought in for less money, not whether the law could restrict it.

Neil

The ECJ undermining workers' rights.

On Mon, 18 Jul 2016 11:05:55 -0500, wrote:

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? Paranoia is a thing.

Where is the text published?

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
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.

I was referring to the mercury instrument (I thought that was bleeding
obvious)

tim

wrote in message
...
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

so we wont accept theirs then

if they are as diplomatic as Boris Johnson and David Davis.

Do you really think that politicians take their rhetoric into private
meetings?

It isn't just Boris and Dave who are outspoken on the campaign trail

tim

In message , at 10:25:58 on Tue, 19 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.

I was referring to the mercury instrument (I thought that was bleeding
obvious)

The problem with mercury is that even if not "abused" (whatever that
means) it has a tendency to get split, and when it does the tiny
droplets run everywhere and are very difficult to clean up.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 10:25:58 on Tue, 19 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.

I was referring to the mercury instrument (I thought that was bleeding
obvious)

The problem with mercury is that even if not "abused" (whatever that
means) it has a tendency to get split, and when it does the tiny droplets
run everywhere and are very difficult to clean up.

thermometers are sealed units

(I have no idea about barometers, but assume likewise)

tim

On 19/07/2016 11:02, Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:25:58 on Tue, 19 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.

I was referring to the mercury instrument (I thought that was bleeding
obvious)

The problem with mercury is that even if not "abused" (whatever that
means) it has a tendency to get split, and when it does the tiny
droplets run everywhere and are very difficult to clean up.

I can remember playing with blobs of mercury when I was a kid, great fun
chasing them round the table....

Colin