In message , at 08:38:48 on Tue, 15 Nov
2016, tim... remarked:
a political entity of which neither the council
that makes policy

They don't *make* much policy, they agree it. And they are elected
because they are ministers from the member states.

Are they? I don't remember anyone voting for Junker.

Bzzt - he's the President of the Commission, nothing to do with the
council of ministers.

which is precisely the point (of who makes policy)

The CoM, don't make policy, the agree it. But it is the Commission who
(attempt) to make it.

The Commission take a long term view of the whole policy landscape and
based on their research with a wide range of stakeholders publish what
we'd call a White Paper. I could be something like "we need to review
the copyright law, and here are some suggestions for a new Directive".

Parliament then debates it in detail, in committees, and responds to
both political opinion and lobbying while they thrash out the fine
detail. In the case of the Copyright Directive one of the many such fine
details was "what should we do about these new-fangled web proxy caches"
(because they by definition take a copy of what's passing through them).

Suggestions ranged from, a one extreme, ISPs having to buy a site
licence from each website operator [who cared enough to demand the
money] via buying a licence similar to that already in place from the
Performing Rights people, to setting up some kind of turnover-based levy
like that on blank cassettes, through to the final result which was "as
long as the ISP plays nicely by the rules -eg by respecting 'no cache'
tags, and not using the cache as a way to circumvent paywalls" - then
they'll have an exemption.

During the process, member states are consulted via their appropriate
departments (Patent Office at the time) who conduct their own local
consultions/negotiations on the fine detail with indigenous ISPs and
rightsholders. This all goes back into the pot and eventually the
Parliament produces a final version which by then is usually
rubber-stamped by the Council of Ministers (because their battles were
fought earlier in the process).

I lead for the UK ISP industry, and the outcome was modelled on the
agreement I hammered out with the initially extremely sceptical
rightsholder lawyers. Because of the way the UK is famous for coming
with mutually acceptable compromises, we punch well above our weight in
the drafting of a lot of EU law.

On a slight Brexit note, I think I was involved for about a year, at
times doing one day a week on this and related issues.

Obrail: several trips to Brussels on E* plus the Oslo airport express
(to attend a 3-day conference on just this one "tiny" detail).

30,000 additional civil servants for 2yrs - I suppose they might just
get a foothold on the tip of the iceberg.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:06:42 on Tue, 15 Nov
2016, d remarked:
Are they? I don't remember anyone voting for Junker.

Bzzt - he's the President of the Commission, nothing to do with the
council of ministers.

Do tell us when this election was held, I must have missed it.

15th July 2014, he was elected by MEPs. Representative democracy.

I'll put it another way, who in THIS country voted for him?

British MEPs.

Which ones?

Do your own homework.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 11:05:27 on Tue, 15 Nov
2016, d remarked:
If it boils slower you'll out less water in, and that's where the saving
comes from.

So its nothing to do with efficiency, its wishful thinking about human nature.

It's better than wishful thinking.

Yeah, right. Thats all it is without doing a scientific trial.

What makes you think they haven't?

Many vacuum cleaners create more suction than necessary "because they
can".

Well if mine is anything to go by it doesn't create enough.

How many watts is it? Have you emptied the bag recently.

It doesn't have a bag and the container gets emptied frequently. Its 2000W
and yet still it won't suck up hairs and threads and similar things off
carpets.

Clearly a poor design. Dysons are awful, and the look-alikes don't work
very well either because Dyson has the patents on their technology.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:41:15 +0000
wrote:
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 11:05:27 +0000 (UTC), d wrote:
It doesn't have a bag and the container gets emptied frequently. Its 2000W
and yet still it won't suck up hairs and threads and similar things off
carpets.

If you ever decide to replace it it at least see if you can borrow a
Sebo for a test. We have the Felix Pet model ( though we don't

Cheers, will try and remember that. Given the shoddy way most appliances
are built these days it won't be a case of deciding to change it, it'll just
die suddenly like that last 2.

Personally when Government and big business start to turn off
unnecessary lights of in buildings and almost empty military bases lit
up like an evening match at Wembley then I'll start to worry about a
few watts making a cuppa or picking up some dirt.

Quite. Also the CoE claims poverty yet almost all its big abbeys and cathedrals
are festoned with kilowatt look-at-me floodlights.

Bringing the topic back towards transport - a bugbear of mine is sections of
motorway that have so many lights its virtually like daylight - the M11 near
stansted is a fine example of this. Whats the point when all vehicles have
lights plus it nicely kills your night vision for when you reach a part that
isn't lit or leave the motorway.

--
Spud

In message , at 09:54:55 on
Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:12:34 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:54:42 on
Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.

Ask them what- the meaning of "truism"?


What are you on about?

Trying to understand why you think a truism answers my original
question.

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.

So you don't know.

So what future trade deals will the EU negotiate? Will there be a deal
with Australia? You don't know that, do you?

It's the time it takes, not the countries you are negotiating which
matters.

It's very difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future.

The time it takes to negotiate is fairly well understood. For example,
the ITU works on a four-year cycle. And within that there are meetings
going on almost every week of the year.

Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than
the EU has.

So you don't know.

Will the awful TTIP deal being pushed by the EU go ahead?

It's being pushed by the USA. How many years in are we now - ah yes...
five years and counting since it got properly started.

We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.

Even when the rules come from the EU. That rather contradicts your
position on mercury.

USA has competition in telecoms as well. Last time I checked USA not in EU.

Irrelevant. It's not the fact of having competition, but the thousands
of lines of law required to regulate the market.

And why do you think that a single-issue such as [grant funding
famine] will dominate an election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.

That doesn't answer the question (a definite trend as this thread
continues).

You don't understand democratic politics, do you?

One things for sure, you aren't the only person here who doesn't
understand representative democracy.

That figures, you support unaccountable government and taxation.

No, because they *are* accountable.

Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.

We get a lot more than "money" back.

Yes, out from under a corrupt empire.

Economies of scale, mainly.
--
Roland Perry

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:18:28 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 09:54:55 on
Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 18:12:34 +0000, Roland Perry wrote:

In message , at 16:54:42 on
Mon, 14 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:
But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.

Ask them what- the meaning of "truism"?


What are you on about?

Trying to understand why you think a truism answers my original
question.


I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.

So you don't know.

So what future trade deals will the EU negotiate? Will there be a deal
with Australia? You don't know that, do you?

It's the time it takes, not the countries you are negotiating which
matters.

You still don't say why it should take so long.


It's very difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future.

The time it takes to negotiate is fairly well understood. For example,
the ITU works on a four-year cycle. And within that there are meetings
going on almost every week of the year.

Counries can negotiate bilaterally.


Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than
the EU has.

So you don't know.

Will the awful TTIP deal being pushed by the EU go ahead?

It's being pushed by the USA. How many years in are we now - ah yes...
five years and counting since it got properly started.

Eaxactly. It's not really a free trade deal at all but to give control to big business. That's why
it's doomed.


We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.

Even when the rules come from the EU. That rather contradicts your
position on mercury.

USA has competition in telecoms as well. Last time I checked USA not in EU.

Irrelevant. It's not the fact of having competition, but the thousands
of lines of law required to regulate the market.

Rubbish


And why do you think that a single-issue such as [grant funding
famine] will dominate an election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.

That doesn't answer the question (a definite trend as this thread
continues).

You don't understand democratic politics, do you?

One things for sure, you aren't the only person here who doesn't
understand representative democracy.

That figures, you support unaccountable government and taxation.

No, because they *are* accountable.

Yawn


Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.

We get a lot more than "money" back.

Yes, out from under a corrupt empire.

Economies of scale, mainly.

The people now see where economies can be made, now that the scales have fallen from their eyes.

On 15/11/2016 09:40, d wrote:
On Mon, 14 Nov 2016 17:56:15 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:32:49 on Mon, 14 Nov
2016, d remarked:

Well if you enjoy subsidising basket case economies (spain, italy, greece,
most
of eastern europe) and think a political entity of which neither the council
that makes policy

They don't *make* much policy, they agree it. And they are elected
because they are ministers from the member states.

Are they? I don't remember anyone voting for Junker.

Bzzt - he's the President of the Commission, nothing to do with the
council of ministers.

Do tell us when this election was held, I must have missed it.

15th July 2014, he was elected by MEPs. Representative democracy.

I'll put it another way, who in THIS country voted for him?


Nigel Farage.

--
Graeme Wall
This account not read.

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:00:37 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:06:42 on Tue, 15 Nov
2016, d remarked:
Are they? I don't remember anyone voting for Junker.

Bzzt - he's the President of the Commission, nothing to do with the
council of ministers.

Do tell us when this election was held, I must have missed it.

15th July 2014, he was elected by MEPs. Representative democracy.

I'll put it another way, who in THIS country voted for him?

British MEPs.

Which ones?


You made the assertion, you back it up.

--
Spud

On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 12:02:47 +0000
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:05:27 on Tue, 15 Nov
2016, d remarked:
If it boils slower you'll out less water in, and that's where the saving
comes from.

So its nothing to do with efficiency, its wishful thinking about human
nature.

It's better than wishful thinking.

Yeah, right. Thats all it is without doing a scientific trial.

What makes you think they haven't?

Because its the EU and their science is flakey to say the least. Look at
the car emissions test - its a farce that only know-nothing apparatchiks
could have come up with.

It doesn't have a bag and the container gets emptied frequently. Its 2000W
and yet still it won't suck up hairs and threads and similar things off
carpets.

Clearly a poor design. Dysons are awful, and the look-alikes don't work
very well either because Dyson has the patents on their technology.

FWIW the equally powerful bag ones I had before didn't work any better.

--
Spud

In message , at 12:31:49 on
Tue, 15 Nov 2016, Optimist remarked:

But rely on ECJ caselaw. Will we airbrush that out on Brexit day, or
will we (can we even) continue to rely upon it?

That depends on the drafting of the legislation.

That's a truism, not an answer.

Ask a lawyer.

Ask them what- the meaning of "truism"?


What are you on about?

Trying to understand why you think a truism answers my original
question.


I don't know, I'm not a lawyer.

Why would a lawyer know whether or not a truism can be construed as an
answer?

Why ten years? Could be ten weeks or ten months.

It takes that long to work out the detail.

No it doesn't, draft agreements with some countries are already taking
shape. This can happen quite quickly, unless you think that
negotiators have to travel in person by sailing ship to discuss terms.

That's just plain wrong. In terms of 80:20 rules, 98% of the work takes
2% of the time, and the final 2% takes 98%.

We'll see.

So you don't know.

So what future trade deals will the EU negotiate? Will there be a deal
with Australia? You don't know that, do you?

It's the time it takes, not the countries you are negotiating which
matters.

You still don't say why it should take so long.

Because those kinds of negotiations always do.

It's very difficult to make predictions, particularly about the future.

The time it takes to negotiate is fairly well understood. For example,
the ITU works on a four-year cycle. And within that there are meetings
going on almost every week of the year.

Counries can negotiate bilaterally.

That, of itself, won't speed things up.

Also note that the Swiss GDP is a quarter
of the UK's which makes the stakes lower, and thus easier to negotiate.

They've been doing it for years, about the same time as the EU, but
with much greater success.

Do you have an example of one, with start and finish dates? And were the
same team trying to negotiate a dozen others simultaneously.

Ask them. The fact is they trade deals with far more countries than
the EU has.

So you don't know.

Will the awful TTIP deal being pushed by the EU go ahead?

It's being pushed by the USA. How many years in are we now - ah yes...
five years and counting since it got properly started.

Eaxactly. It's not really a free trade deal at all but to give control
to big business. That's why it's doomed.

Oddly enough, a lot of international trade is B2B.

We managed before 1973.

The world has become far more complicated.

Really?

Yes, take just one area - telecommunications. In that time we've gone
from "Do what PO Telephones tells you, and shut up" to hundreds of
individual rules and regulations covering thousands of suppliers.

Now there are more service providers, more choice, more competition.

Even when the rules come from the EU. That rather contradicts your
position on mercury.

USA has competition in telecoms as well. Last time I checked USA not in EU.

Irrelevant. It's not the fact of having competition, but the thousands
of lines of law required to regulate the market.

Rubbish

What is. Have you actually read the various telecoms directives?

And why do you think that a single-issue such as [grant funding
famine] will dominate an election campaign?

Stand yourself then and make a difference.

That doesn't answer the question (a definite trend as this thread
continues).

You don't understand democratic politics, do you?

One things for sure, you aren't the only person here who doesn't
understand representative democracy.

That figures, you support unaccountable government and taxation.

No, because they *are* accountable.

Yawn


Fact is we give far more money to the EU than we get back.

We get a lot more than "money" back.

Yes, out from under a corrupt empire.

Economies of scale, mainly.

The people now see where economies can be made, now that the scales
have fallen from their eyes.

Unfortunately, they are wrong.
--
Roland Perry