|
||||||||
Guardian: EU agrees to push UK into Hard Brexit |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
#576 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: May 2008
Location: Lancashire
Posts: 8,259
|
|
|
|
|
|
Please sign in or register to remove this advertisement.
|
|
|
#577 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#578 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
No need for you to apologise for your notoriously abject failure to fully comprehend the written word, (and presumably the spoken word too!!), but I have now twice quoted a source from an international policy council, so if you believe they are lying, then a) endeavour to prove it, and b) take it up with them as you are accusing them of lying.
Are you now saying you actually think that line was in the standard? Quote:
Whether you started by claiming that it was a lie or not is, as is most of what you post, absolutely irrelevant - because you DID claim it - but instead of asininly bleating, the onus is upon YOU to back up what you are claiming - as well as discrediting the source with 'facts' rather than your opinion.
No, if you claim it was in the standard it's up to you to show a copy of the standard with that line in it. Simple really.Quote:
?? I actually agree with you - so, I look forward to seeing your 'factual evidence' to support your claim that it WAS a lie - and I have already indicated that some produce has been banned from sale by the EU for not meeting required physical properties - such as 'dimension'.
Er, I'd already looked before your hopelessly misplaced arrogance in telling me to look at the standard; such elementary research was what lead me to realise you'd been fooled remarkably easily without an nanosecond's research:http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...8R1677:En:HTML |
|
|
|
|
|
#579 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
#580 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kent
Posts: 3,039
|
Quote:
Yes, another person giving a masterclass in why referenda are a bad idea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#581 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
Only when you lose apparently. I'm sure you would not have that view had remain won.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#582 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
Burden of proof. The onus is upon you to provide the proof backs your claim - not with anybody else to prove you wrong.
Quote:
If you can't (or won't) provide the proof, not only can we all ignore your claim, but we can also quite rightly assume that it is without merit and false. At least until you provide proof.
You can do what the hell you like - but if somebody accuses someone else of lying, then common sense would dictate that heshe SHOULD be able to provide evidence to support that claim.There is a large difference between disagreeing with someone's opinion, and claiming that what they are saying is a lie. |
|
|
|
|
|
#583 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
Which would be great if that was the original legislation and not a quote of an interpretation of the legislation.
Ridiculous! |
|
|
|
|
|
#584 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
Burden of proof. The onus is upon you to provide the proof backs your claim - not with anybody else to prove you wrong.
Quote:
If you can't (or won't) provide the proof, not only can we all ignore your claim, but we can also quite rightly assume that it is without merit and false. At least until you provide proof.
You eat far too many radishes - but as I said earlier - you can do as you wish, and ignore what you want, I certainly won't get concerned by that!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#585 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
No, I'm accusing you. You were the one who told me it was in the standard by snootily referring me to it.
Are you now saying you actually think that line was in the standard? Quote:
No, if you claim it was in the standard it's up to you to show a copy of the standard with that line in it. Simple really.
I know you are simple, which is why I am showing great patience with your inane utterings - I claimed that it was because of the regulations , and cited the reference so you could see for yourelf. No matter how much you rant and bleat - the professional conclusion would appear to disagree with you about it being a lie. So - it's up to you to prove them wrong.Quote:
Er, I'd already looked before your hopelessly misplaced arrogance in telling me to look at the standard; such elementary research was what lead me to realise you'd been fooled remarkably easily without an nanosecond's research:
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...8R1677:En:HTML[/quote]I had read that document - and agreed with the Council's conclusion. |
|
|
|
|
|
#586 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Anyway - let's cut to the chase - apart from still awaiting your evidence to support your claim of referenced sources actually 'lying' - you asked for just 1 EU regulation that was needless - that has been provided - and after being derided so much, because of that, it has now been repealed....otherwise......it would still be on the books!
That says a lot!! In addition, the COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2257/94, stated, in it's minimum requirements for ALL classes in its classification, into 3 groups categorisation, — free from malformation or abnormal curvature However, they don't define 'abnormal' curvature - so, I guess that regulation could be deemed USELESS, never mind needless! |
|
|
|
|
|
#587 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
You are still talking nonsense - I cited the source - if the burden of proof rests with anyone it is clearly with the individual who claimed their conclusions were lies.
The Policy Council states that cucumbers of a certain shape cannot be sold, not because the EU says so, but because of some reasoning behind their interpretation of the legislation. Quote:
You eat far too many radishes - but as I said earlier - you can do as you wish, and ignore what you want, I certainly won't get concerned by that!
Here is the actual legislation. There's nothing there about not selling cucumbers of a certain shape, only classification based on different factors. There's nothing there about "abnormally shaped" cucumbers, only the definition of crooked. For example; Quote:
Slightly crooked cucumbers may have a maximum height of the arc of 20 mm per 10 cm of length of the cucumber. The legislation is there for you to read, that is, if you're willing to risk your assumptions and secondary & tertiary sources being proven wrong. But you're not - you've clung to a misinterpretation of the legislation that you "believe to be true" because you WANT to pin something absurd on the EU. Crooked cucumbers may have a greater arc and must be packed separately. I suppose many people really do live in a post-truth world. |
|
|
|
|
|
#588 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
Nonsense - I provided you with the Council's reference to the Acts - and their interpretation of what it means. You are the arrogant one who claimed that THEY were lying - so it's up to YOU to show WHY their statement is a lie!!
I know you are simple, which is why I am showing great patience with your inane utterings - I claimed that it was because of the regulations , and cited the reference so you could see for yourelf. No matter how much you rant and bleat - the professional conclusion would appear to disagree with you about it being a lie. So - it's up to you to prove them wrong. I had read that document - and agreed with the Council's conclusion. Quote:
Already forgotten the classic -European Commission Regulation No. 1677/88, "Class I" and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. "Class II" cucumbers can bend twice as much. Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold.
Quote:
A 'clue' was already provided -
European Commission Regulation No. 1677/88, You been conned, learn from this to research properly before having such laughably misplaced arrogance. |
|
|
|
|
|
#589 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jun 2014
Posts: 1,812
|
Arguments about regulations that have been repealed are a bit pointless as they are no longer valid. A normal part of any legislative process is that any regulation will be altered (including the possibility of further extension or abolishment).
If we apply that as a basis for our objections then we presumably should also favour abolishing the UK since if we look at the "permanent way" part of our railways, Parliament's regulations have seen it over the years as: private, nationalised, private & now nationalised again. That's a clear case of Parliament changing its mind and us having either "unnecessary" privatisation or nationalisations.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#590 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
Arguments about regulations that have been repealed are a bit pointless as they are no longer valid. A normal part of any legislative process is that any regulation will be altered (including the possibility of further extension or abolishment).
If we apply that as a basis for our objections then we presumably should also favour abolishing the UK since if we look at the "permanent way" part of our railways, Parliament's regulations have seen it over the years as: private, nationalised, private & now nationalised again. That's a clear case of Parliament changing its mind and us having either "unnecessary" privatisation or nationalisations. ![]() |
|
|
|
|
|
#591 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
You were asked to provide evidence of your claim that EU rules state that cucumbers of a certain arc cannot be sold. When asked to provide evidence/link of that particular rule, you failed to do so.
Quote:
The Policy Council states that cucumbers of a certain shape cannot be sold, not because the EU says so, but because of some reasoning behind their interpretation of the legislation.
Not at all - it's is clearly because they because they don't meet the MINIMUM requirements specified, but certainly doesn't appear to be unreasonable.Quote:
And yet, here you are, throwing around personal insults because people won't take your claims at face value and at your word. I'd say it matters a great deal to you that people won't believe you and are saying as much.
Lol - point out truths is hardly throwing around personal insults.Quote:
Here is the actual legislation. There's nothing there about not selling cucumbers of a certain shape, only classification based on different factors.
See above - and then demonstrate how less than minimum requirement products being sold by retailers could be legal.There's nothing there about "abnormally shaped" cucumbers, only the definition of crooked. For example; Quote:
The legislation is there for you to read, that is, if you're willing to risk your assumptions and secondary & tertiary sources being proven wrong. But you're not - you've clung to a misinterpretation of the legislation that you "believe to be true" because you WANT to pin something absurd on the EU.
What a load of garbage - are you related to Andykins perhaps? There is a definite similarity!I don't have to 'want' to pin something absurd on the EU - they are very capable of illustrating their expertise in that field. Quote:
I suppose many people really do live in a post-truth world.
Really - well - so do you live in a 'pre-truth' world then??? -
|
|
|
|
|
|
#592 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
You have forgotten how this conversation started, I'll remind you what you actually originally said:
i couldn't find that last line in the regulation cited so asked for a credible link, you arrogantly and wrongly pointed me towards the standard: Quote:
You didn't claim it was "because of the regulations", the post truth, neo con Gatestone Institute, there to fool the stupid and gullible, also did not claim it was because of the regulations.
Not at all - even if they did fool you - at least the majority of people could understand that establishing minimum requirements results in 'rejected item'Quote:
You been conned, learn from this to research properly before having such laughably misplaced arrogance.
Arrogance is ALWAYS misplaced - which you constantly demonstrate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#593 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes;84680442}Already forgotten the classic -[B
European Commission Regulation No. 1677/88, "Class I" and "Extra class" cucumbers are allowed a bend of 10mm per 10cm of length. "Class II" cucumbers can bend twice as much. Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold.[/b]
Quote:
Got a credible link for that?
Quote:
Hardly vague.
A 'clue' was already provided - European Commission Regulation No. 1677/88, |
|
|
|
|
|
#594 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 1,981
|
Quote:
YOU could suggest how such products can be sold if they don't meet the minimum requirements?? COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2257/94,
You were asked to show the evidence that shows that the EU bans the sell of a certain shape of cucumber. You refused. It's now been shown that you can in fact sell very curved cucumbers - as long as they are packaged separately and meet the minimum of other requirements. You (and many others) interpret this as "curvy cucumbers not allowed to be sold" - which is patently untrue, especially if you bother to read the legislation. I can't be the only one here who is laughing at the absurdity of a heated debate over the subject of overly-curved cucumbers. |
|
|
|
|
|
#595 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
And when I asked:
You didn't refer to the post truth neo con thinktank but arrogantly said: But the last sentence is neither correct nor in the regulation. |
|
|
|
|
|
#596 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
I don't have to. All I've discussed is this idea that cucumbers of a certain shape can't be sold. The legislation doesn't show that at all. Crooked cucumbers can be classed, but if they fail the legislation (i.e. - they're not actually fit for sale because they look horrid or are damaged) the shape isn't what prevents them from being classed, and available for sale.
Quote:
You were asked to show the evidence that shows that the EU bans the sell of a certain shape of cucumber. You refused. It's now been shown that you can in fact sell very curved cucumbers - as long as they are packaged separately and meet the minimum of other requirements.
Read the regulations again - and then consider what 'minimum standards 'means.Quote:
You (and many others) interpret this as "curvy cucumbers not allowed to be sold" - which is patently untrue, especially if you bother to read the legislation.
You read it again as I have stated - there is a curvature limit specified - and BANS the sale of the 'abnormally curved' products - (without specify what that is).Quote:
I can't be the only one here who is laughing at the absurdity of a heated debate over the subject of overly-curved cucumbers.
So what? Laughing is good for you!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
#597 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
Ah diddums get frightened by believing he referenced a Nazt site. How typical of o to continue posting unsupported assertions...grow up and stop whingeing.
That's why referenda are a bad idea, people like you are lied to and get it wrong. |
|
|
|
|
|
#598 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 2,650
|
Quote:
The unsupported assertion was yours, that I could find that quote in the standard. I couldn't because you'd conned.
That's why referenda are a bad idea, people like you are lied to and get it wrong. What do you believe happens to items of such produce that do not meet minimum standards?? |
|
|
|
|
|
#599 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 3,996
|
I wish they'd just throw us out so we can get on with it and stop arguing about how to implement Brexit.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#600 |
|
Forum Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: London SW6
Posts: 37,482
|
Quote:
Nonsense - you epitomise the typically gullible Bremoaner who just can't let go of the referendum result. The biggest lie of all is that the UK membership of the EU is essential - you lot are the real 'Gullibles!! '
Quote:
What do you believe happens to items of such produce that do not meet minimum standards??
They are used in food processing, not retail - from the actual standard, not your fake website:"I. DEFINITION OF PRODUCE This standard applies to cucumbers grown from varieties (cultivars) of Cucumis sativus L. to be supplied fresh to the consumer, cucumbers for processing and gherkins being excluded." http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/...8R1677:En:HTML You still really don't understand that you've been conned, do you? You voted based on lies, that's why referenda are a bad idea. |
|
|
|
![]() |
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:25.



