Guardian: EU agrees to push UK into Hard Brexit
24 of 32
Originally Posted by John146:
“http://www.arboleas.co.uk/forum/inde...105223.10;wap2
Definitely says it in this link”
“http://www.arboleas.co.uk/forum/inde...105223.10;wap2
Definitely says it in this link”
Which would be great if that was the original legislation and not a quote of an interpretation of the legislation.
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“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.”
“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.”
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:
“ 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.”
“ 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'.”
“ ?? 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
Originally Posted by John146:
“http://www.arboleas.co.uk/forum/inde...105223.10;wap2
Definitely says it in this link”
“http://www.arboleas.co.uk/forum/inde...105223.10;wap2
Definitely says it in this link”
Yes, another person giving a masterclass in why referenda are a bad idea.
Originally Posted by andykn:
“Yes, another person giving a masterclass in why referenda are a bad idea.”
“Yes, another person giving a masterclass in why referenda are a bad idea.”
Only when you lose apparently. I'm sure you would not have that view had remain won.
Originally Posted by Jayceef1:
“Only when you lose apparently. I'm sure you would not have that view had remain won.”
“Only when you lose apparently. I'm sure you would not have that view had remain won.”
Then you are wrong. I was opposed to the referendum all along.
Originally Posted by BinaryDad:
“Burden of proof. The onus is upon you to provide the proof backs your claim - not with anybody else to prove you wrong.”
“Burden of proof. The onus is upon you to provide the proof backs your claim - not with anybody else to prove you wrong.”
Wrong - i believe it to be true - however, it was cited by an International Policy Council - and I supplied the reference.
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.”
“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.
Originally Posted by BinaryDad:
“Which would be great if that was the original legislation and not a quote of an interpretation of the legislation.”
“Which would be great if that was the original legislation and not a quote of an interpretation of the legislation.”
Rubbish! We aren't in court on this particular issue. The policy Council, which I would suggest has far more knowledge/experience of such matters have deemed what they believe is a sensible interpretation of the acts - however, YOU may believe they are incorrect.....and naturally, you could /shouldindicate why - but claiming that they are lying????
Ridiculous!
Originally Posted by BinaryDad:
“Burden of proof. The onus is upon you to provide the proof backs your claim - not with anybody else to prove you wrong.”
“Burden of proof. The onus is upon you to provide the proof backs your claim - not with anybody else to prove you wrong.”
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.
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.”
“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!
Originally Posted by andykn:
“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?”
“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?”
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!!
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.”
“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:”
“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.
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!
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!
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“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!”
“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!”
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.
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.
Crooked cucumbers may have a greater arc and must be packed separately.”
“Slightly crooked cucumbers may have a maximum height of the arc of 20 mm per 10 cm of length of the cucumber.
Crooked cucumbers may have a greater arc and must be packed separately.”
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.
I suppose many people really do live in a post-truth world.
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“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.”
“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.”
You have forgotten how this conversation started, I'll remind you what you actually originally said:
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“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.”
“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.”
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:
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“ A 'clue' was already provided -
European Commission Regulation No. 1677/88,”
“ A 'clue' was already provided -
European Commission Regulation No. 1677/88,”
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.
You been conned, learn from this to research properly before having such laughably misplaced arrogance.
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.
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.
Originally Posted by Kiteview:
“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.”
“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.
”
I also gave a link showing that the British Standards Institute, to which presumably the extremist Brexiters would wish us to return as the ultimate Standards authority outside the single market, had 40,000 withdrawn standards on record.
Originally Posted by BinaryDad:
“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.”
“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.”
No - I was asked to provide a link to the paragraph, that I quoted, (which I unfortunately didn't note - but which has since been referenced), which cited that particular result of the EU regulation - but maybe YOU could suggest how such products can be sold if they don't meet the minimum requirements?? COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2257/94,
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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“I suppose many people really do live in a post-truth world.”
Really - well - so do you live in a 'pre-truth' world then??? -
Originally Posted by andykn:
“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:”
“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:”
Where did I claim that the result of such legislation was written in the regulations? I have already apologised for not initially providing the source of my information - I mistakenly assumed you had the sense to realise that such products had to meet specific requirements prior to being marketed - which surely is one of the prime intentions for a regulation.
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.”
“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.”
“You been conned, learn from this to research properly before having such laughably misplaced arrogance.”
Arrogance is ALWAYS misplaced - which you constantly demonstrate.
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]”
“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]”
And when I asked:
Originally Posted by andykn:
“Got a credible link for that?”
“Got a credible link for that?”
You didn't refer to the post truth neo con thinktank but arrogantly said:
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“Hardly vague.
A 'clue' was already provided -
European Commission Regulation No. 1677/88,”
“Hardly vague.
A 'clue' was already provided -
European Commission Regulation No. 1677/88,”
But the last sentence is neither correct nor in the regulation.
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“YOU could suggest how such products can be sold if they don't meet the minimum requirements?? COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2257/94,”
“YOU could suggest how such products can be sold if they don't meet the minimum requirements?? COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 2257/94,”
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.
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.
Originally Posted by andykn:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
Originally Posted by BinaryDad:
“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.”
“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.”
They clearly cannot be sold if they do not meet the regulated MINIMUM standards - that what regulations do!!
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.”
“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 (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.”
“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!!
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“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.”
“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.”
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.
Originally Posted by andykn:
“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.”
“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.”
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!! '
What do you believe happens to items of such produce that do not meet minimum standards??
I wish they'd just throw us out so we can get on with it and stop arguing about how to implement Brexit.
Originally Posted by Steve_Holmes:
“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!! '”
“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!! '”
Yep, and that's all your lie.
Quote:
“What do you believe happens to items of such produce that do not meet minimum standards??”
“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.
24 of 32
