[Continuation] Brexit: Now What? Part 6. Pick up sticks... - Page 17

The Moog · 6th December 2018, 11:29 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

As I posted before even LeaveHQ said that trading on WTO terms would be bad

http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blo...s9eTz74nTWYNpU

Have WTO terms even been agreed upon?
Last I checked they had been submitted but several countries objected...

Wudang · 6th December 2018, 12:09 PM

Originally Posted by The Moog

Have WTO terms even been agreed upon?
Last I checked they had been submitted but several countries objected...

Indeed. Even the very bad option of the WTO that LeaveHQ acknowledge as a catastrophe is something we will have to work to achieve. We could be worse off than even that.

catsmate · 6th December 2018, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by zooterkin

Cite?

The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki...ennial_sources

catsmate · 6th December 2018, 12:22 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

Throwing more MEPs at the problem wouldn't make sense.

I got very interested in the EU back when the TPD was proposed as I ran a business that was directly affected by the proposed directive.

I campaigned against it long and hard along with many of my colleagues. It got passed. Only they used political dirty tricks to push it through. Which got me to wondering what other EU rules were also passed using such tactics, so I looked a lot closer and didn't like what I saw.

e.g. Lobbying. there are an estimated 25000 lobbyists in the EU corridors of power it's estimated they spend a combined 1.5bn euros a year on their lobbying.

It was pharma lobbyists that pushed the TPD through because they wanted to make a lot more money from ineffective and potentially harmful stop smoking treatments, and to control the vaping industry. After it got passed the barriers to entry for that market are now enormous, the innovation in it has been stifled and a lot of the smaller players, myself included, are no longer in business.

That just benefits big corporations. We, the people, elect our representatives and they get sweet talked by lobbyists and line their own pockets at the expense of the majority. That's what I am talking about when I call the EU an undemocratic gravy train. That is what needs changing.

If instead of the TPD that we have now MEPs had been allowed to properly review the science and the evidence, then we could have had reasonable proportional regulations that protected the consumers and also were attainable by small/medium businesses. There'd be more choice and more competition so the end consumer would pay less.

and

Yes it was terrible that the evil EU forced manufacturers to actually test their products and truthfully list the ingredients.

3point14 · 6th December 2018, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by catsmate

The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki...ennial_sources

I think he was just correcting my spelling...

catsmate · 6th December 2018, 12:24 PM

Originally Posted by Lothian

My ref would be a STV

Do you want

1 May's deal
2 Leave without a deal
3 Remain.

Put number 1 by your first choice and 2 by your second choice.
In the event that no choice gains 50 % of the vote, the votes for the option with the fewest votes will be reallocated where a second preference is given.

For 'leave with out a deal' votors 'preference' means things you like. 50% means half.

That could create a terrible precedent for using STV voting in elections.

catsmate · 6th December 2018, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by 3point14

I think he was just correcting my spelling...

I wondered...

Information Analyst · 6th December 2018, 12:52 PM

Originally Posted by 3point14

The man's a ****. Easy.

(the starred out word above is the worst one you can think of, just fyi. It's a word I use about once a year)

"Tory"?

Captain_Swoop · 6th December 2018, 12:52 PM

Brexit: ITV scraps plans for TV debate between leaders

ITV has scrapped its plans to hold a Brexit debate between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn this Sunday.

The channel said it had invited both parties to appear on the programme two days ahead of the meaningful vote on Mrs May's withdrawal agreement.

But an ITV spokeswoman confirmed on Thursday that it would "not go ahead".

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46476324

Information Analyst · 6th December 2018, 01:02 PM

Originally Posted by Craig4

Since it appears that it's just England who wants to leave, couldn't you put the hard border between England and the rest of the UK?

Wales also voted to Leave, but then specific areas of England voted Remain (e.g. London, most major cities, etc.).

Information Analyst · 6th December 2018, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by catsmate

The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki...ennial_sources

Of course the problem is that some editors try to game the system and insist that no cite to the Mail whatsoever is valid, even though there are stated exemptions, e.g. when citing a controversial Mail article.

Vixen · 6th December 2018, 02:09 PM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

The article makes no suggestion that it has to be that. The article, rather, points out that occupants of the current registered address of the company denied that they were in any way associated with it, indicating that the current registered address is fraudulent. It also points out that the publicly available accounts of the organisation are not, in fact, publicly available, meaning thatthe company is in violation of the terms by which it qualifies for limited disclosure exemption. But I'm sure you could read all that perfectly clearly too.

Dave

It is quite normal - where there is a firm offering multiple company directorships - for there to be literally dozens of companies sharing the same 'registered address'.

ponderingturtle · 6th December 2018, 02:12 PM

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is quite normal - where there is a firm offering multiple company directorships - for there to be literally dozens of companies sharing the same 'registered address'.

Small potatoes, here in the US we have thousands of corperations sharing one PO box.

THis house has 200,000

https://freebeacon.com/issues/delawa...lary-clintons/

Belgian thought · 6th December 2018, 02:17 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

I'll keep this brief as this isn't the topic of the thread but basically:

Article 20 (the bit that pertains to vaping) was tacked onto the TPD and was drafted in a rushed process called trilogue . this is basically a behind closed doors series of meeting with EU lawyers and some other interested parties, to hammer out the text of directives.

The people in the meetings for Article 20 of the TPD didn't include any pro-vaping people or anyone representing the lots of credible scientific research that was being done at the time. IIRC we had something like 7 or 8 peer reviewed papers from proper scientific journals detailing exactly how and why the directive was bad all of which was hand waved away by the trilogue committee and wasn't properly debated prior to the vote.
They drafted a dogs dinner of a directive as a result of lack of expertise and lack of consultation.

Here is a blog from the time from Clive Bates. Clive is a former director of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) and has also worked as a civil servant for the cabinet office and Environment Agency, so in short he knows what he's talking about.

To top all that off the President of the European Parliament at the time Martin Schulz refused initially to allow split and separate voting for different aspects of the TPD (which was and is, in most part, a good directive) changing his mind an hour before the vote took place (Feb 26th 2014) then he refused to allow more time for stakeholders to make their case against article 18A (which later became Article 20) so the whole thing got passed in a very rushed vote. (this is the political dirty trick I am referring to)

MEP Martin Callanan (now Lord Callanan) stood up in the EP immediately before the vote to try to make the case for having more time to review Article18A and was shut down in short order.

I am not saying it's undemocratic because I didn't get my way, I am saying it's undemocratic because directives that effect millions of Europeans should at least be drafted by people who have expertise on the subject at hand and then properly debated before being voted on.

It turns out that many EU directives are drafted using trilogue, which seems to me to be a very flawed process.

EU directives, by and large, reflect the desires of corporate lobbyists and not what would actually be best for the people.

I'll happily go into more depth if you are interested on the TPD, but not in this thread. The full text of the TPD is here.

There are sites that discuss EU lobbying but, I agree with you that the EU should be more transparent.

https://www.integritywatch.eu/lobbyist.html

Wudang · 6th December 2018, 02:24 PM

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is quite normal - where there is a firm offering multiple company directorships - for there to be literally dozens of companies sharing the same 'registered address'.

In fact if you google the address there are a lot of companies using that address. One is a Manx ISP I've dealt with and others. And the place isn't so shabby as the BBC make it seem speaking as a regular visitor to Douglas.

Dave Rogers · 6th December 2018, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by Vixen

It is quite normal - where there is a firm offering multiple company directorships - for there to be literally dozens of companies sharing the same 'registered address'.

Yes, I'm well aware of that. What is not normal is for the occupants of the registered address to make it clear that they have no knowledge whatsoever of the firm that is supposedly registered there.

Dave

Ambrosia · 6th December 2018, 06:15 PM

Originally Posted by catsmate

and

Yes it was terrible that the evil EU forced manufacturers to actually test their products and truthfully list the ingredients.

It was already a legal requirement that companies list their ingredients.

I, like most of the small vaping guys *did * get my liquids tested.

The vaping industry circa 2016 *wanted* there to be testing and standards.

What should have happened is that the TPD should have been passed without any reference to vaping stuff, what with vaping products not containing any tobacco and it being the *tobacco products* directive, and then there should have been a whole new separate directive to put in place reasonable testing and standards and regulations for vaping.

Testing and standards that reflected the peer reviewed science that would have protected the public and offered consumers choice and competition.
The best outcome for the average person would have been testing and standards that were attainable for an average small/medium business.

Instead they forced GMP (good manufacturing practice) onto everyone, which sounds good, but is actually pharmaceutical grade manufacturing practices, which cost upwards of £20k to implement. per item.

Instead of forcing just the cowboys out of business it forced most of the small/medium businesses out and handed control of the vaping market over to big business.

I took the lessons I learned from all of that and started up a new business selling fudge as it happens, but the TPD means that the NHS nowadays has a much higher bill to pay for the times that it recommends vaping as an alternative to smoking because most of the people left in the vaping market are pharma/tobacco companies who pass the extra costs onto the end user.

I can talk about the TPD at length, for hours. It's an appalling piece of legislation that should never have been passed. But it was, because lobbyists.

And yes I am well aware that there are lobbyists in the UK, but by and large lobbying in the UK isn't as bad as that in the EU and we are still much better off than the US in that regard.

Also it's easier to campaign against and repeal country specific legislation, rather than EU wide legislation.

Ambrosia · 6th December 2018, 06:43 PM

Originally Posted by Wudang

And yet isn't Sweden in the EU?

Yes. Yes it is.

You would think that as smoking is so detrimental to public health and because it drains so much of taxpayers money from the public purse via treatments for smoking related diseases that anything that reduced smoking prevalence would be welcomed.

5% (five percent!) of adult Swedes smoke. Lots more of them use Snus.

We could reduce smoking prevalence from our present numbers of 15-20% to probably at least 10% if Snus was available Europe wide.

Sweden had to fight to be able to sell it at all, why can't smokers have the option to use Snus in the UK or in France or in Germany etc?

How much money would the NHS save if it had 1/3rd less of patients to treat with smoking related diseases?

What's the impact of those extra patients on waiting list times?

Is all of that really worth protecting the profits and CEO bonuses of pharma companies for? I don't think it is.

angrysoba · 6th December 2018, 06:51 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

How much money would the NHS save if it had 1/3rd less of patients to treat with smoking related diseases?

Next bus slogan?

Of course, like the last one, the problem here is that you have to demonstrate that Brexit will result in the outcome you want.

Ambrosia · 6th December 2018, 07:09 PM

Originally Posted by angrysoba

Next bus slogan?

Of course, like the last one, the problem here is that you have to demonstrate that Brexit will result in the outcome you want.

Brexit won't result in the outcome that I want.

I voted for Brexit as a protest vote. Lots of the Brexit campaign made me mad, including the bus slogan and just about everything Nigel Farage ever said and the fact that that I was voting the same was as the BNP and their ilk.

If I could go back and do things over I'd probably not have voted at all, but, ultimately my one single vote made sod all difference to the outcome.

Again, I am for European union, but against the EU.

I want open borders and free movement of goods and people.
I want close co-operation Europe wide for security.

I want the UK to have a little more say over the laws that govern it's people

fromdownunder · 6th December 2018, 08:08 PM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

I voted for Brexit as a protest vote. Lots of the Brexit campaign made me mad, including the bus slogan and just about everything Nigel Farage ever said and the fact that that I was voting the same was as the BNP and their ilk.

If I could go back and do things over I'd probably not have voted at all, but, ultimately my one single vote made sod all difference to the outcome.

Are you suggesting that your vote was unique, and that nobody else voted for BREXIT as a protest vote? It would have not taken too many voters to do what you did to change the result. Less than 2% would have led to a vote so close either way that nobody could be standing up and saying that "this is the will of the British people"

Norm

BobTheCoward · 6th December 2018, 08:19 PM

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

Are you suggesting that your vote was unique, and that nobody else voted for BREXIT as a protest vote? It would have not taken too many voters to do what you did to change the result. Less than 2% would have led to a vote so close either way that nobody could be standing up and saying that "this is the will of the British people"

Norm

Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes?

fromdownunder · 6th December 2018, 08:41 PM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes?

You know that there were any remain protest votes from people who wanted to leave?

Norm

jimbob · 6th December 2018, 10:47 PM

Originally Posted by fromdownunder

You know that there were any remain protest votes from people who wanted to leave?

Norm

Your signature seems appropriate for the comment that you were replying to.

Darat · 7th December 2018, 01:08 AM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

Yes. Yes it is.

You would think that as smoking is so detrimental to public health and because it drains so much of taxpayers money from the public purse via treatments for smoking related diseases that anything that reduced smoking prevalence would be welcomed.

5% (five percent!) of adult Swedes smoke. Lots more of them use Snus.

We could reduce smoking prevalence from our present numbers of 15-20% to probably at least 10% if Snus was available Europe wide.

Sweden had to fight to be able to sell it at all, why can't smokers have the option to use Snus in the UK or in France or in Germany etc?

How much money would the NHS save if it had 1/3rd less of patients to treat with smoking related diseases?

What's the impact of those extra patients on waiting list times?

Is all of that really worth protecting the profits and CEO bonuses of pharma companies for? I don't think it is.

Er that would be because the UK government, the French government etc. have decided to regulate their citizenship.

Information Analyst · 7th December 2018, 01:28 AM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

I voted for Brexit as a protest vote. Lots of the Brexit campaign made me mad, including the bus slogan and just about everything Nigel Farage ever said and the fact that that I was voting the same was as the BNP and their ilk.

If I could go back and do things over I'd probably not have voted at all, but, ultimately my one single vote made sod all difference to the outcome.

I would content that all those who voted Leave for similarly capricious reasons were very much part of making the difference.

Quote:

I want the UK to have a little more say over the laws that govern it's people

Ah, the old UK exceptionalism argument again! The UK already had control over most of its laws. In the case of EU-mandated regulation, it had as much say as any other EU country in their formulation.

angrysoba · 7th December 2018, 01:30 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes?

How would that even work?

Information Analyst · 7th December 2018, 01:32 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes?

I wouldn't say there were none, but there was far less evidence of them than vice versa.

Klimax · 7th December 2018, 01:54 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes?

Protest against what?

Wudang · 7th December 2018, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by Ambrosia

Yes. Yes it is.

You would think that as smoking is so detrimental to public health and because it drains so much of taxpayers money from the public purse via treatments for smoking related diseases that anything that reduced smoking prevalence would be welcomed.

5% (five percent!) of adult Swedes smoke. Lots more of them use Snus.

We could reduce smoking prevalence from our present numbers of 15-20% to probably at least 10% if Snus was available Europe wide.

Sweden had to fight to be able to sell it at all, why can't smokers have the option to use Snus in the UK or in France or in Germany etc?

How much money would the NHS save if it had 1/3rd less of patients to treat with smoking related diseases?

What's the impact of those extra patients on waiting list times?

Is all of that really worth protecting the profits and CEO bonuses of pharma companies for? I don't think it is.

So you think the EU is a bad thing and the UK would make better laws on its own because another EU country made better laws for itself and the UK didn't? I'm not sure I follow.

Lothian · 7th December 2018, 02:09 AM

Originally Posted by Wudang

So you think the EU is a bad thing and the UK would make better laws on its own because another EU country made better laws for itself and the UK didn't? I'm not sure I follow.

No, Ambrosia is like most people and is taking a selfish attitude. Vaping is a common subject for Ambrosia. I suspect they are involved in the industry and wants to pedal more product and sees leaving the EU as a means to that.
Same as James, build my cleaners in Malaysia, Dyson and Arron, offshore companies, Banks. The unemployed want rid of foreigners who 'steal' their jobs. Middle class remainers pay enough for their quinoa, they don't want to pay import duties on top, and they certainly don't want to pay the inevitable higher taxes coming mainly their way when the economy tanks.
Everyone is selfish, but at least the remain side has the expert consensus that it better for the economy and therefore better for UK citizens as a whole. Leave is purely selfish.

Tolls · 7th December 2018, 02:21 AM

Did the UK oppose the modifications to the TPD?
Since the UK has not fought to allow Snus in the country, which should be possible since Sweden succeeded, then what makes anyone think a UK not in the EU would make a blind bit of difference?

This is the point.
Our governments have used the EU as a shield for legislation they appear to be quite happy with. As soon as you scratch the surface you find that they didn't actually put up a fight.

Dave Rogers · 7th December 2018, 02:33 AM

Originally Posted by BobTheCoward

Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes?

Remain was a vote for the status quo. Protest votes are, by their very nature, votes against the status quo; saying "Everything is fine the way it is" has precisely zero protest value. I'm not saying there weren't a few voters who were too stupid to figure that out and thought they were protesting against something by voting Remain, but it's hard to see how anybody who'd given the matter a vestige of serious thought could have done so.

Dave

erwinl · 7th December 2018, 02:37 AM

Originally Posted by Klimax

Protest against what?

"I Really want the UK to be out of the EU!
But I absolutely oppose the extra 350M pounds per weeks for the NHS and so I vote Remain as a protest vote!"

Something like that?

Amazer · 7th December 2018, 03:31 AM

Originally Posted by erwinl

"I Really want the UK to be out of the EU!
But I absolutely oppose the extra 350M pounds per weeks for the NHS and so I vote Remain as a protest vote!"

Something like that?

Lol.... I like your thinking

"I Really want the UK to be out of the EU!
But I absolutely oppose our MP's doing as they please (sod that sovereign parliament) and so I vote Remain as a protest vote!"

Captain_Swoop · 7th December 2018, 05:39 AM

Brexit: Collapse in pound would be no bad thing, says David Davis

Britain would benefit from a plunging pound after a no-deal Brexit, David Davis has said, suggesting it would ease the departure from Europe.

Rejecting claims that a hard Brexit would be worse for Britain than Europe, Mr Davis claimed a 10 per cent drop in sterling would not be “a bad thing”. He said it would have a negative impact on European importers while offsetting the cost of tariffs for British companies selling to Europe.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/3...5-4dc2d31f2a89

This is what Brexit has come to, promoting economic collapse as a benefit.

Tolls · 7th December 2018, 05:40 AM

Yes, because a jab of inflation would be just what we need, to add to our woes.

God than man is a complete arse.

3point14 · 7th December 2018, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by Tolls

Yes, because a jab of inflation would be just what we need, to add to our woes.

God than man is a complete arse.

Makes you wonder who's paying him.

BobTheCoward · 7th December 2018, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by Dave Rogers

Remain was a vote for the status quo. Protest votes are, by their very nature, votes against the status quo; saying "Everything is fine the way it is" has precisely zero protest value. I'm not saying there weren't a few voters who were too stupid to figure that out and thought they were protesting against something by voting Remain, but it's hard to see how anybody who'd given the matter a vestige of serious thought could have done so.

Dave

I'm putting protest leave voters in the dumb person category. As such, I'm never sure when other dumb people cancel each other out because of their dumbness.

Present company excluded, of course.

fagin · 7th December 2018, 06:46 AM

No need to exclude yourself.

6th December 2018, 11:29 AM	#641
The Moog Thinker Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 238	Originally Posted by Wudang As I posted before even LeaveHQ said that trading on WTO terms would be bad http://leavehq.com/blogview.aspx?blo...s9eTz74nTWYNpU Have WTO terms even been agreed upon? Last I checked they had been submitted but several countries objected...
The Moog Thinker Join Date: Oct 2014 Posts: 238

6th December 2018, 12:17 PM	#643
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 19,886	Originally Posted by zooterkin Cite? The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki...ennial_sources
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

6th December 2018, 12:22 PM	#644
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 19,886	Originally Posted by Ambrosia Throwing more MEPs at the problem wouldn't make sense. I got very interested in the EU back when the TPD was proposed as I ran a business that was directly affected by the proposed directive. I campaigned against it long and hard along with many of my colleagues. It got passed. Only they used political dirty tricks to push it through. Which got me to wondering what other EU rules were also passed using such tactics, so I looked a lot closer and didn't like what I saw. e.g. Lobbying. there are an estimated 25000 lobbyists in the EU corridors of power it's estimated they spend a combined 1.5bn euros a year on their lobbying. It was pharma lobbyists that pushed the TPD through because they wanted to make a lot more money from ineffective and potentially harmful stop smoking treatments, and to control the vaping industry. After it got passed the barriers to entry for that market are now enormous, the innovation in it has been stifled and a lot of the smaller players, myself included, are no longer in business. That just benefits big corporations. We, the people, elect our representatives and they get sweet talked by lobbyists and line their own pockets at the expense of the majority. That's what I am talking about when I call the EU an undemocratic gravy train. That is what needs changing. If instead of the TPD that we have now MEPs had been allowed to properly review the science and the evidence, then we could have had reasonable proportional regulations that protected the consumers and also were attainable by small/medium businesses. There'd be more choice and more competition so the end consumer would pay less. and Yes it was terrible that the evil EU forced manufacturers to actually test their products and truthfully list the ingredients.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

6th December 2018, 12:23 PM	#645
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 16,855	Originally Posted by catsmate The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki...ennial_sources I think he was just correcting my spelling...
3point14 Pi Join Date: Nov 2005 Posts: 16,855	__________________ Up the River!

6th December 2018, 12:24 PM	#646
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 19,886	Originally Posted by Lothian My ref would be a STV Do you want 1 May's deal 2 Leave without a deal 3 Remain. Put number 1 by your first choice and 2 by your second choice. In the event that no choice gains 50 % of the vote, the votes for the option with the fewest votes will be reallocated where a second preference is given. For 'leave with out a deal' votors 'preference' means things you like. 50% means half. That could create a terrible precedent for using STV voting in elections.
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

6th December 2018, 12:09 PM	#642
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire Posts: 11,479	Originally Posted by The Moog Have WTO terms even been agreed upon? Last I checked they had been submitted but several countries objected... Indeed. Even the very bad option of the WTO that LeaveHQ acknowledge as a catastrophe is something we will have to work to achieve. We could be worse off than even that.

6th December 2018, 12:28 PM	#647
catsmate No longer the 1 Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 19,886	Originally Posted by 3point14 I think he was just correcting my spelling... I wondered...
	__________________ As human right is always something given, it always in reality reduces to the right which men give, "concede," to each other. If the right to existence is conceded to new-born children, then they have the right; if it is not conceded to them, as was the case among the Spartans and ancient Romans, then they do not have it. For only society can give or concede it to them; they themselves cannot take it, or give it to themselves.

6th December 2018, 12:52 PM	#648
Information Analyst Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure... Posts: 8,822	Originally Posted by 3point14 The man's a ****. Easy. (the starred out word above is the worst one you can think of, just fyi. It's a word I use about once a year) "Tory"?

6th December 2018, 12:52 PM	#649
Captain_Swoop Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Jun 2010 Posts: 19,057	Brexit: ITV scraps plans for TV debate between leaders ITV has scrapped its plans to hold a Brexit debate between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn this Sunday. The channel said it had invited both parties to appear on the programme two days ahead of the meaningful vote on Mrs May's withdrawal agreement. But an ITV spokeswoman confirmed on Thursday that it would "not go ahead". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46476324

6th December 2018, 01:02 PM	#650
Information Analyst Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure... Posts: 8,822	Originally Posted by Craig4 Since it appears that it's just England who wants to leave, couldn't you put the hard border between England and the rest of the UK? Wales also voted to Leave, but then specific areas of England voted Remain (e.g. London, most major cities, etc.).

6th December 2018, 01:17 PM	#651
Information Analyst Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure... Posts: 8,822	Originally Posted by catsmate The Daily Mail was deprecated in the 2017 RfC. There is consensus that the Daily Mail (including its online version, MailOnline) is generally unreliable, and its use as a reference is generally prohibited, especially when other more reliable sources exist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiki...ennial_sources Of course the problem is that some editors try to game the system and insist that no cite to the Mail whatsoever is valid, even though there are stated exemptions, e.g. when citing a controversial Mail article.

6th December 2018, 02:09 PM	#652
Vixen Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Apr 2015 Location: Moomin Valley Posts: 14,924	Originally Posted by Dave Rogers The article makes no suggestion that it has to be that. The article, rather, points out that occupants of the current registered address of the company denied that they were in any way associated with it, indicating that the current registered address is fraudulent. It also points out that the publicly available accounts of the organisation are not, in fact, publicly available, meaning thatthe company is in violation of the terms by which it qualifies for limited disclosure exemption. But I'm sure you could read all that perfectly clearly too. Dave It is quite normal - where there is a firm offering multiple company directorships - for there to be literally dozens of companies sharing the same 'registered address'.
	__________________ If man has no tea in him, he is incapable of understanding truth and beauty. ~ Japanese Proverb

6th December 2018, 02:12 PM	#653
ponderingturtle Orthogonal Vector Join Date: Jul 2006 Posts: 45,170	Originally Posted by Vixen It is quite normal - where there is a firm offering multiple company directorships - for there to be literally dozens of companies sharing the same 'registered address'. Small potatoes, here in the US we have thousands of corperations sharing one PO box. THis house has 200,000 https://freebeacon.com/issues/delawa...lary-clintons/
	__________________ Sufficiently advanced Woo is indistinguishable from Parody "There shall be no poofing in science" Paul C. Anagnostopoulos Force ***** on reasons back" Ben Franklin

6th December 2018, 02:17 PM	#654
Belgian thought Master Poster Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 2,127	Originally Posted by Ambrosia I'll keep this brief as this isn't the topic of the thread but basically: Article 20 (the bit that pertains to vaping) was tacked onto the TPD and was drafted in a rushed process called trilogue . this is basically a behind closed doors series of meeting with EU lawyers and some other interested parties, to hammer out the text of directives. The people in the meetings for Article 20 of the TPD didn't include any pro-vaping people or anyone representing the lots of credible scientific research that was being done at the time. IIRC we had something like 7 or 8 peer reviewed papers from proper scientific journals detailing exactly how and why the directive was bad all of which was hand waved away by the trilogue committee and wasn't properly debated prior to the vote. They drafted a dogs dinner of a directive as a result of lack of expertise and lack of consultation. Here is a blog from the time from Clive Bates. Clive is a former director of ASH (Action on Smoking and Health) and has also worked as a civil servant for the cabinet office and Environment Agency, so in short he knows what he's talking about. To top all that off the President of the European Parliament at the time Martin Schulz refused initially to allow split and separate voting for different aspects of the TPD (which was and is, in most part, a good directive) changing his mind an hour before the vote took place (Feb 26th 2014) then he refused to allow more time for stakeholders to make their case against article 18A (which later became Article 20) so the whole thing got passed in a very rushed vote. (this is the political dirty trick I am referring to) MEP Martin Callanan (now Lord Callanan) stood up in the EP immediately before the vote to try to make the case for having more time to review Article18A and was shut down in short order. I am not saying it's undemocratic because I didn't get my way, I am saying it's undemocratic because directives that effect millions of Europeans should at least be drafted by people who have expertise on the subject at hand and then properly debated before being voted on. It turns out that many EU directives are drafted using trilogue, which seems to me to be a very flawed process. EU directives, by and large, reflect the desires of corporate lobbyists and not what would actually be best for the people. I'll happily go into more depth if you are interested on the TPD, but not in this thread. The full text of the TPD is here. There are sites that discuss EU lobbying but, I agree with you that the EU should be more transparent. https://www.integritywatch.eu/lobbyist.html
	__________________ ... er, that's it

6th December 2018, 02:24 PM	#655
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire Posts: 11,479	Originally Posted by Vixen It is quite normal - where there is a firm offering multiple company directorships - for there to be literally dozens of companies sharing the same 'registered address'. In fact if you google the address there are a lot of companies using that address. One is a Manx ISP I've dealt with and others. And the place isn't so shabby as the BBC make it seem speaking as a regular visitor to Douglas.

6th December 2018, 04:58 PM	#656
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 28,497	Originally Posted by Vixen It is quite normal - where there is a firm offering multiple company directorships - for there to be literally dozens of companies sharing the same 'registered address'. Yes, I'm well aware of that. What is not normal is for the occupants of the registered address to make it clear that they have no knowledge whatsoever of the firm that is supposedly registered there. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

6th December 2018, 06:15 PM	#657
Ambrosia Good of the Fods Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,508	Originally Posted by catsmate and Yes it was terrible that the evil EU forced manufacturers to actually test their products and truthfully list the ingredients. It was already a legal requirement that companies list their ingredients. I, like most of the small vaping guys did get my liquids tested. The vaping industry circa 2016 wanted there to be testing and standards. What should have happened is that the TPD should have been passed without any reference to vaping stuff, what with vaping products not containing any tobacco and it being the tobacco products directive, and then there should have been a whole new separate directive to put in place reasonable testing and standards and regulations for vaping. Testing and standards that reflected the peer reviewed science that would have protected the public and offered consumers choice and competition. The best outcome for the average person would have been testing and standards that were attainable for an average small/medium business. Instead they forced GMP (good manufacturing practice) onto everyone, which sounds good, but is actually pharmaceutical grade manufacturing practices, which cost upwards of £20k to implement. per item. Instead of forcing just the cowboys out of business it forced most of the small/medium businesses out and handed control of the vaping market over to big business. I took the lessons I learned from all of that and started up a new business selling fudge as it happens, but the TPD means that the NHS nowadays has a much higher bill to pay for the times that it recommends vaping as an alternative to smoking because most of the people left in the vaping market are pharma/tobacco companies who pass the extra costs onto the end user. I can talk about the TPD at length, for hours. It's an appalling piece of legislation that should never have been passed. But it was, because lobbyists. And yes I am well aware that there are lobbyists in the UK, but by and large lobbying in the UK isn't as bad as that in the EU and we are still much better off than the US in that regard. Also it's easier to campaign against and repeal country specific legislation, rather than EU wide legislation.

6th December 2018, 06:43 PM	#658
Ambrosia Good of the Fods Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,508	Originally Posted by Wudang And yet isn't Sweden in the EU? Yes. Yes it is. You would think that as smoking is so detrimental to public health and because it drains so much of taxpayers money from the public purse via treatments for smoking related diseases that anything that reduced smoking prevalence would be welcomed. 5% (five percent!) of adult Swedes smoke. Lots more of them use Snus. We could reduce smoking prevalence from our present numbers of 15-20% to probably at least 10% if Snus was available Europe wide. Sweden had to fight to be able to sell it at all, why can't smokers have the option to use Snus in the UK or in France or in Germany etc? How much money would the NHS save if it had 1/3rd less of patients to treat with smoking related diseases? What's the impact of those extra patients on waiting list times? Is all of that really worth protecting the profits and CEO bonuses of pharma companies for? I don't think it is.

6th December 2018, 06:51 PM	#659
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 24,425	Originally Posted by Ambrosia How much money would the NHS save if it had 1/3rd less of patients to treat with smoking related diseases? Next bus slogan? Of course, like the last one, the problem here is that you have to demonstrate that Brexit will result in the outcome you want.
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

6th December 2018, 07:09 PM	#660
Ambrosia Good of the Fods Join Date: Jun 2009 Posts: 2,508	Originally Posted by angrysoba Next bus slogan? Of course, like the last one, the problem here is that you have to demonstrate that Brexit will result in the outcome you want. Brexit won't result in the outcome that I want. I voted for Brexit as a protest vote. Lots of the Brexit campaign made me mad, including the bus slogan and just about everything Nigel Farage ever said and the fact that that I was voting the same was as the BNP and their ilk. If I could go back and do things over I'd probably not have voted at all, but, ultimately my one single vote made sod all difference to the outcome. Again, I am for European union, but against the EU. I want open borders and free movement of goods and people. I want close co-operation Europe wide for security. I want the UK to have a little more say over the laws that govern it's people

6th December 2018, 08:08 PM	#661
fromdownunder Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,254	Originally Posted by Ambrosia I voted for Brexit as a protest vote. Lots of the Brexit campaign made me mad, including the bus slogan and just about everything Nigel Farage ever said and the fact that that I was voting the same was as the BNP and their ilk. If I could go back and do things over I'd probably not have voted at all, but, ultimately my one single vote made sod all difference to the outcome. Are you suggesting that your vote was unique, and that nobody else voted for BREXIT as a protest vote? It would have not taken too many voters to do what you did to change the result. Less than 2% would have led to a vote so close either way that nobody could be standing up and saying that "this is the will of the British people" Norm
	__________________ Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain

6th December 2018, 08:19 PM	#662
BobTheCoward Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Nov 2010 Posts: 15,727	Originally Posted by fromdownunder Are you suggesting that your vote was unique, and that nobody else voted for BREXIT as a protest vote? It would have not taken too many voters to do what you did to change the result. Less than 2% would have led to a vote so close either way that nobody could be standing up and saying that "this is the will of the British people" Norm Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes?

6th December 2018, 08:41 PM	#663
fromdownunder Philosopher Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 6,254	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes? You know that there were any remain protest votes from people who wanted to leave? Norm
	__________________ Against stupidity, the Gods themselves contend in Vain

6th December 2018, 10:47 PM	#664
jimbob Uncritical "thinker" Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: UK Posts: 20,024	Originally Posted by fromdownunder You know that there were any remain protest votes from people who wanted to leave? Norm Your signature seems appropriate for the comment that you were replying to.
	__________________ OECD healthcare spending Expenditure on healthcare http://www.oecd.org/els/health-systems/health-data.htm link is 2015 data (2013 Data below): UK 8.5% of GDP of which 83.3% is public expenditure - 7.1% of GDP is public spending US 16.4% of GDP of which 48.2% is public expenditure - 7.9% of GDP is public spending

7th December 2018, 01:08 AM	#665
Darat Lackey Administrator Join Date: Aug 2001 Location: South East, UK Posts: 84,803	Originally Posted by Ambrosia Yes. Yes it is. You would think that as smoking is so detrimental to public health and because it drains so much of taxpayers money from the public purse via treatments for smoking related diseases that anything that reduced smoking prevalence would be welcomed. 5% (five percent!) of adult Swedes smoke. Lots more of them use Snus. We could reduce smoking prevalence from our present numbers of 15-20% to probably at least 10% if Snus was available Europe wide. Sweden had to fight to be able to sell it at all, why can't smokers have the option to use Snus in the UK or in France or in Germany etc? How much money would the NHS save if it had 1/3rd less of patients to treat with smoking related diseases? What's the impact of those extra patients on waiting list times? Is all of that really worth protecting the profits and CEO bonuses of pharma companies for? I don't think it is. Er that would be because the UK government, the French government etc. have decided to regulate their citizenship.
	__________________ I wish I knew how to quit you

7th December 2018, 01:28 AM	#666
Information Analyst Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure... Posts: 8,822	Originally Posted by Ambrosia I voted for Brexit as a protest vote. Lots of the Brexit campaign made me mad, including the bus slogan and just about everything Nigel Farage ever said and the fact that that I was voting the same was as the BNP and their ilk. If I could go back and do things over I'd probably not have voted at all, but, ultimately my one single vote made sod all difference to the outcome. I would content that all those who voted Leave for similarly capricious reasons were very much part of making the difference. Quote: I want the UK to have a little more say over the laws that govern it's people Ah, the old UK exceptionalism argument again! The UK already had control over most of its laws. In the case of EU-mandated regulation, it had as much say as any other EU country in their formulation.
	Last edited by Information Analyst; 7th December 2018 at 01:31 AM.

7th December 2018, 01:30 AM	#667
angrysoba Philosophile Join Date: Dec 2009 Location: Osaka, Japan Posts: 24,425	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes? How would that even work?
	__________________ "The thief and the murderer follow nature just as much as the philanthropist. Cosmic evolution may teach us how the good and the evil tendencies of man may have come about; but, in itself, it is incompetent to furnish any better reason why what we call good is preferable to what we call evil than we had before." "Evolution and Ethics" T.H. Huxley (1893)

7th December 2018, 01:32 AM	#668
Information Analyst Philosopher Join Date: Jul 2009 Location: Besźel or Ul Qoma - not sure... Posts: 8,822	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes? I wouldn't say there were none, but there was far less evidence of them than vice versa.

7th December 2018, 01:54 AM	#669
Klimax NWO Cyborg 5960x (subversion VPUNPCKHQDQ) Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Starship Wanderer - DS9 Posts: 12,632	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes? Protest against what?
	__________________ ModBorg Engine: Ibalgin 400

7th December 2018, 01:57 AM	#670
Wudang BOFH Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: People's Republic of South Yorkshire Posts: 11,479	Originally Posted by Ambrosia Yes. Yes it is. You would think that as smoking is so detrimental to public health and because it drains so much of taxpayers money from the public purse via treatments for smoking related diseases that anything that reduced smoking prevalence would be welcomed. 5% (five percent!) of adult Swedes smoke. Lots more of them use Snus. We could reduce smoking prevalence from our present numbers of 15-20% to probably at least 10% if Snus was available Europe wide. Sweden had to fight to be able to sell it at all, why can't smokers have the option to use Snus in the UK or in France or in Germany etc? How much money would the NHS save if it had 1/3rd less of patients to treat with smoking related diseases? What's the impact of those extra patients on waiting list times? Is all of that really worth protecting the profits and CEO bonuses of pharma companies for? I don't think it is. So you think the EU is a bad thing and the UK would make better laws on its own because another EU country made better laws for itself and the UK didn't? I'm not sure I follow.

7th December 2018, 02:09 AM	#671
Lothian should be banned Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: on the edge Posts: 14,152	Originally Posted by Wudang So you think the EU is a bad thing and the UK would make better laws on its own because another EU country made better laws for itself and the UK didn't? I'm not sure I follow. No, Ambrosia is like most people and is taking a selfish attitude. Vaping is a common subject for Ambrosia. I suspect they are involved in the industry and wants to pedal more product and sees leaving the EU as a means to that. Same as James, build my cleaners in Malaysia, Dyson and Arron, offshore companies, Banks. The unemployed want rid of foreigners who 'steal' their jobs. Middle class remainers pay enough for their quinoa, they don't want to pay import duties on top, and they certainly don't want to pay the inevitable higher taxes coming mainly their way when the economy tanks. Everyone is selfish, but at least the remain side has the expert consensus that it better for the economy and therefore better for UK citizens as a whole. Leave is purely selfish.

7th December 2018, 02:21 AM	#672
Tolls Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 4,384	Did the UK oppose the modifications to the TPD? Since the UK has not fought to allow Snus in the country, which should be possible since Sweden succeeded, then what makes anyone think a UK not in the EU would make a blind bit of difference? This is the point. Our governments have used the EU as a shield for legislation they appear to be quite happy with. As soon as you scratch the surface you find that they didn't actually put up a fight.
Tolls Illuminator Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 4,384

7th December 2018, 02:33 AM	#673
Dave Rogers Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD Posts: 28,497	Originally Posted by BobTheCoward Wouldn't it cancel out with remain protest votes? Remain was a vote for the status quo. Protest votes are, by their very nature, votes against the status quo; saying "Everything is fine the way it is" has precisely zero protest value. I'm not saying there weren't a few voters who were too stupid to figure that out and thought they were protesting against something by voting Remain, but it's hard to see how anybody who'd given the matter a vestige of serious thought could have done so. Dave
	__________________ Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right? Tony Szamboti: That is right

7th December 2018, 02:37 AM	#674
erwinl Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,181	Originally Posted by Klimax Protest against what? "I Really want the UK to be out of the EU! But I absolutely oppose the extra 350M pounds per weeks for the NHS and so I vote Remain as a protest vote!" Something like that?
erwinl Master Poster Join Date: Sep 2008 Posts: 2,181	__________________ Bow before your king Member of the "Zombie Misheard Lyrics Support Group"

7th December 2018, 03:31 AM	#675
Amazer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,648	Originally Posted by erwinl "I Really want the UK to be out of the EU! But I absolutely oppose the extra 350M pounds per weeks for the NHS and so I vote Remain as a protest vote!" Something like that? Lol.... I like your thinking "I Really want the UK to be out of the EU! But I absolutely oppose our MP's doing as they please (sod that sovereign parliament) and so I vote Remain as a protest vote!"
Amazer Graduate Poster Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 1,648