Unfortunately, all the comments nowadays from various Ministetrs would suggest that Brexit , as such, will NOT be implemented.
Norway for instance, is NOT a member of the EU - but are controlled by them in many legislative areas, have to accept FoM, and also have to subsidise the EU ----a similar agreement to that for the UK would NOT be Brexit.

NOBODY can lie as much as you. Why is another expensive Parliament, with an unelected Executive, and uncontrolled borders necessary for the UK benefit economically from trade???


So finally, the penny has dropped!!! Yes - the EU prohibit the retail sale of 'non- standard' products.......which was stated ages ago!!
Sill - better late than never - congratulations.
[quote]
"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

Very good - but I didn't doubt that even you understood what 'produce' was - so you can stop your usual wriggling pretense that the issue was related to that - your nickname should be 'Worm' - or 'Snake'....either would be far more appropriate.

Lol - you just don't understand period. Simple!! - and holdind a referendum is the most outright example of democracy there is when a major issue is involved - but sore losers like yourself are far worse than the average person's reaction. I would certainly have been upset if the result had gone the other way - but I WOULD at least have accepted that it was an result of a democratic action, and responded in a grown up
manner.
You are the 'conned' one - for believing all that pre-referendum scaremongering. Time YOU grew up, and accepted the result.

No, but we would have left the EU. That's exactly what you voted for; don't say you want another referendum!

Because it removes barriers to trade.

Remind me where did you specify retail "ages ago"?

Er, you seem to have completely lost track of your argument. You said "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold." and then "What do you believe happens to items of such produce that do not meet minimum standards??"

You're only mentioning retail since I pointed it out to you, you've obviously never read the standard despite your hilariously misplaced arrogance in pointing me to it.

Again you've lost track.

You were told by a dodgy foreign website that the EU banned the sale of curvy cucumbers and swallowed it hook, line and sinker.

You then voted based on this and other similar misinformation.

That's why referenda are a bad idea.

No I didn't - and even you know it!

I don't know what your dodgy foreign propaganda websites told you but if you'd read the actual ballot paper it said "Leave the European Union". That's the only box you ticked, if you thought you were voting for something else you are just again demonstrating why referenda are a bad idea.

What an idiotic comment! A FTA does that - a political Union, with an unelected soviet as the Executive is absolutely NOT needed to achieve that.

We do know that you have a very selective memory, but I will prompt you by saying that Retailers were prohibited from selling non-standard products, but these could still go to the manufacturer of the likes of pies etc. But I can't be arsed to trawl back to note specific posts.

Nope - unlike yourself, I have been consistent - that was in reference to the retail trade. Wholesale maunufacturers could clearly use them. As I said - it was a ridiculous regulation, which was why various countries raised objections to it - and it was eventually repealed.


Lol - I will repeat - yet another example of your selective memory!!

Not me mister - that is clearly your talent......not mentioning retailers indeed!!


.It isn't a single source , - here's another one --http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/3443343/EU-to-allow-sale-of-odd-shaped-fruit-and-vegetables.html, and you still exhibit that absolute arrogance that YOU know better than an international policy council - again, without supporting your stupid 'Nazi' slurs......which of course is normal for you.


So you claim - but your assertions are usually worthless - as well as unsupported.


You really are a 'mine' of ridiculous comments aren't you! If anything, YOU are the NAZI, because you are not interested in democratic referendums being held, because it may provide the result that YOU didn't want.
Priceless ........ but where you are concerned, not unsurprising.

You are clearly the dodgy one - but although you continually demonstrate that with your asinine posts, you still haven't supported your criticism of the International Policy Council.
Don't be so obtuse - Brexit means getting out of the EU - IF we have to accept some of their regulations - even if not a direct member - and continue to subsidise them, then we won't be out of the EU.
Although I still don't agree with it - paying to access the Single Market, ( without FoM), could be said to conform with the referendum result - but nothing more than that.

An FTA doesn't remove all barriers to trade.

Funny how I can find the posts showing where you told me to look in the standard for that quote yet you can't find one showing where you later explained you meant retail; because you sure forgot to mention that when arrogantly referring me to a standard that didn't say what you claimed it did.

And you still haven't even actually established they can't be sold retail, just that they don't meet the higher classification grades.

Lets see how consistent you were, shall we?

Nope, no mention of "retail" there, so, on to your next post in that conversation:


Oh dear, still no mention of "retail". Looks likes you're making things up again.

I think we'll find you only mentioned retail when I pointed you towards it earlier today.

You will repeat. you'll repeat any old rubbish because you never learn anything.

All you have to do is find it.

I'm afraid that article doesn't back up the made up quote on your dodgy foreign propaganda website.

Only unsupported to you, who now won;t accept that a sentence they quoted wasn't actually in the standard they referred to despite the exchange being quoted above. That's what's called supporting evidence, only you reject it.

You have continually demonstrated that, not only have you fallen for foreign propaganda, you can't see that you have.

Anyone wanting to invade us should have no problem with people like you around.

It's called the Gatestone institute, it's a US right wing neocon propaganda website.

The fact that you can't see they're wrong is why referenda are a bad idea.

Er, if we're out of the EU, yes we will be outside the EU.

Not what the referendum question asked or you answered,

Yet more evidence of why referenda are a bad idea.

[quote=andykn;84793596]An FTA doesn't remove all barriers to trade.So what? import tariff free trade is still better than tariff trade - and it doesn't come at a ridiculously high cost - which is why the referendum result was was it was. The UK taxpayer is subsidising Europe to enable those relatively few businesses that deal with Europe enjoy tariff free access to the EU.


Stop lying - i didn't say that it said that at all - I provided a quote which stated that as the result of legislation. You are just an arrogant, nit-picking petulant prig - time you grew up, and tried adult debate instead of point scoring.We do know that you have a very selective memory, but I will prompt you again by saying that Retailers were prohibited from selling non-standard products, but these could still go to the manufacturer of the likes of pies etc.

You really have lost it! What do you believe minimum standards are for???


Nope - because YOu have a very poor memory, that's your problem. Keep looking, and you'll find it - albeit, you wouldn't admit it if you did!

Think what you like - I KNOW otherwise.

Lol - as I have said - you are losing it - now I think you have lost lt.....albeit, it's very doubtful that you ever had it!

Yep - that's all you have to do - your poor memory is your problem , not mine.


Really? You seem to possess a reading impediment too - you are in a mess aren't you!!

Crap - you never provide evidence to support your assertions.


.Lol - that isn't the only source that I provided - what a pity your standard of reading is as abject . as your poor memory.

'If anyone has doubted that you were a crackpot, I believe that reading you posts would rapidly remove that doubt.

I can only repeat. You provided a quote from a foreign propaganda website, evidence earlier, when challenged told me it was in the standard, evidence also provided earlier and only today, after I mentioned it, did you say retail. There's no point in my looking for you mentioning retail earlier because you're either lying about it, or, more worryingly, you've actually convinced yourself that you did!

And what was the other source you provided for your made up quote?

And why you think you can say I never provide evidence when it's only a few posts back is just weird - not everyone is as easily taken in as you were with that Gatestone rubbish.

But you seem intent on repeatedly demonstrating why referenda are a bad idea, so keep it up.

This is true. But the minimum standard does not have anything to do with the arc of the cucumber. The only thing that dictates (per the regulations) if they can be sold, is the other criteria such as taste (another way to gauge age), blemishes and signs of damage etc.


Again...there's nothing there that state that the curvature alone is what prevents the classification. An extremely curved cucumber can still be classified, as long as it meets the other minimum criteria.

Blah....I think I've said all I can say here.

Actually BD - it does wrt the written specification. For instance , a Cass 1 cucumber can have up to a maximum height of arc: 10 mm per 10 cm of the length of cucumber - while a class two can have up to a maximum height of arc: 20 mm per 10 cm of the length of cucumber - albeit, there is certainly flexibility / leeway offered on other defects.


Indeed - which is why I stated the high degree of flexibility wrt defects.


.
Lol - I know the feeling - and I would also accept criticism that I sometimes say too much!!! ;o)

Totally irrelevant - and being an international policy council there will be an inevitable 'foreign' element - but that doesn't detract from the accuracy of their claims - and neither does their political affiliation, which is a total 'red herring'

Your memory really is unreliable isn't it - but it is the posts, and not too far back - but to save you having to exert yourself, it was the Telegraph.


Because you don't. You fatuously present your 'opinion'[ as 'evidence'!

. On the contrary - it is the 'real' Nazi's such as yourself who dislike referenda - because that is far too democratic for your liking - because then, you realise that sensible people largely disagree with you.

No, it's the reason they've lied. I can't believe you still think their claim is in any way "accurate"! Even in the unlikely event of you showing where you mentioned "retail" before I pointed that out to you, their website certainly doesn't make that distinction.

As with all your sources, that one didn't back up your claim either.

No, I present your own quotes as "evidence" and the actual standards you think you are quoting but aren't at all.

Sensible? Really. Ok, swear to me that if I search the 25 pages of this thread I'll find that you mentioned "retail" before I pointed it out to you.

NOBODY can lie as much as you. The very fact that you constantly make unsupported claims illustrates that. You ridiculously appear to believe that your opinion constitutes fact.

Liar.

You are generally incapable of providing any form of evidence to support your often egregious opinions.


.
I don't give a monkey's what you believe - or do, or don't do. I can recall stating that the non-standard items could be used in manufacturing products instead of wasting them - but that isn't even necessary to indicate what an absolutely stupid and pointless piece of legislation this was - and which was a positive response to your request to indicate just ONE piece of needless information - which is why you adopt your usual tactic of 'evading' the real issue.

Er, no, I continually quote your posts showing where you have made stuff up, exaples are a few posts previous.

So I posted a link to the standard you arrogantly referred me to for your made up quote to show that it didn't contain it.

Now if you call that just my opinion that shows you are a little distant from reality.

See above and my many previous posts with evidence attached.

Really? Because what I recall is that one of your many attempted justifications for the invented last sentence here:

Was:

Why ask that question if you knew non standard items could be used in manufacturing products (and that the sentence you quoted was therefore a lie)?

And the above quotes are what normal people call "evidence" rather than "opinion" as they are actual quotes.

You don't yet seem to have even decided what the legislation actually was. But if you think it was pointless you should complain to the industry that requested it.

No you don't - you just constantly make unsubstantiated assertions - with your limited mentality, you believe that anybody who makes a claim that is contrary to your twisted belief is a liar. You really are a sad case!!

No - you stupidly claimed that I stated that I posted a 'quote' from that site - and I have since apologised, for not making due allowance for your limited mental ability.
Incidentally - I believe I also provided you with another link - from the Telegraph.

Really? Well YOU are a LONG way from it!

.You are lying again. You don't provide any evidence in the least. You frequently claim that people are LYING - I can't recall ANY occasion when you have provided evidence to support your claim - The basis for your stupid assertions is purely that it is contrary to YOUR opinion.


Dion't be so stupid - I provided you with the source from which the quote was extracted - so where is your evidence that it was a lie?? Such products were banned from supermarket shelves - which is what sensible people would have understood.....they clearly could have sold the banned products to farmers as cattle food. The ridiculous nature of that stupid piece of legislation was to declare such items as unfit for 'human consumption'. That would normally be fairly evident to sensible people - which sort of emphasises your problem.

YOU have NOT provide any evidence to support your freely flung out accusations of lies.

.
I don't have to - YOU were the one who requested evidence for EU stupid/needless/ legslation - and you have been provided with a clear example - no matter how much prevarication you attempt.
Sensible people would obviously realise that banning the sale to the general public of edible products based on abnormal curvature - WITHOUT describing what that is , is absolutely stupid ??
Another needless EU regulation, is the limiting of power of domestic vacuum cleaners.
But the best of all of course, will be the cancelling of the payment of EU migrant children allowance for those children still in their home country.

In your continual attempts to wriggle out of being fooled into voting the wrong way by lying foreign propaganda you are just compounding your error.

The "unfit for 'human consumption'" line seems to be yet another attempt to cover up the fact that, when challenged where that quote came from you arrogantly and wrongly referred to the standard; here's the EVIDENCE:



So blame the industry for asking for it.

Ah, vacuum cleaners. What is better, another 7 polluting power stations across the EU or vacuum cleaners with the same suction but drawing less power.

Only an idiot would go for the former.

And there you go again- yet another asinine post -pretending your opinion is fact.
So - where is your 'always' provided evidence to support that ridiculous comment.
i.e a) Where is your evidence that I voted the 'wrong way'?
b) where is your evidence that they 'lied'
You are just illustrating your absolute arrogance - and ignorance.

You've been provided with it - or do you deny the minimum standard which included the 'abnormal curvature'........without the EU identifying what that is??????

Nope - they didn't expect such a stupid regulation - which received so much ridiculing criticism that the stupid regulations were repealed. Maybe the 'industry' asked for it to be repealed, when they were able to stop laughing!

Lol - reducing power of vacuum cleaners to 'save' the planet - whilst the Chinese are continuing to build coal powered plants until 2030!!

Only an idiot would believe that reducing the power of vacuum cleaners will have any noticeable effect on the increase in atmospheric CO2 levels!!
The global coal power capacity is continuing to increase..........despite the best efforts of many countries......now above the magical 400 level......are we all now doomed Mr Mainwaring?????

Sod CO2 levels, it's the 'leccy bill that's being reduced! I bought one of those new lower-powered vacumns, and does a better job...the suction is way better than the old one. But savings there must be less than pennies.
However, also bought a new freezer with all that environmental gobbledeygook - but wow, same capacity, same temperature but the bill has deffo been reduced. OK< might be a coincidence, but as the house is on gas central heating, not much is electricity is used so if a large appliance uses less and the bill goes down, is it a coincidence?

Suppose a smart meter would tell - anyone??

My frustration with this is that some of the Europhiles seem to think that the good laws only come about because we are in the EU. On that basis we should have been in the stone age until we joined the EU. There is nothing to say that any country would not have come up with them themselves as everything progresses over time. Any good regulations would likely be adopted by other countries and the bad ones would naturally fall by the wayside. Equally there are some that may suit some countries more than others (not that I can think of any off hand) so a one size fits all isn't always appropriate.

Yeah, right. So where did I say the 'always' you've just quoted me as saying? Or are you lying again?

You're dissembling again. You posted "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold.", it's not in the standard you directed me to with such hopelessly misplaced arrogance.

Your problem is that you haven't got a clue about what the regulations were for.

It's about more than just CO2, power plants are expensive, in case you hadn't noticed, and cause plenty of other pollution. Face it, you simply don't understand about any of this.

Au contraire, we were world leaders in standards, that's why it was to our advantage to have standards that we had great influence over adopted more widely.