Obviously, I'm all in favour of making appliances more efficient - but merely reducing the power of an appliance won't do that. It might not even save on the electricity either - because if it is less powerful, it may have to be used for a longer period - or just not be as effective, which might require more frequent use.

Well then you should be a strong supporter of the EU in this area since the whole point of the directives is to ensure that consumers & businesses end up using more energy efficient products. The requirements are that the products shall acheive the same results (or better ones) AND use less energy in the process - in other words that the device using "less power" shall acheive the same or better result (e.g. That it'll be just as good or better at vacuuming the floor as the current "more powerful" model that actually converts a sizeable chunk of the power that is uses into (wasted) heat instead of using it to vacuum the floor).

No numpty - you don't ever admit your abject paucity of providing credible evidence to support your asinine claims - and unlike yourself, I don't lie.


Just more rambling nonsense from yourself. What a shame you cannot read.

Your problem is that you just don't have a clue - period.

Lol - you really are past it!! Life - extensioning of coal powered stations would be far cheaper than building new ones - but that wouldn't fit in with the egregious EU and 'Brown's' ridiculous moves to 'save the planet' - and meanwhile - many Asian areas, including China, are continuing to build numerous coal fired plants......

Lol - - manufacturers do not need such EU sourced incentives ......what is know as 'competition', provides the motive for that - as was illustrated before the birth of the EU. As well as endeavouring to counter the ever increasing energy cost -( especially wrt the increased energy cost of 'green' sources.

The standard addresses efficiency too. Did you dodgy foreign propaganda website make you look ignorant by not telling you that?

hardly an answer to the question, was it, I'll repeat; where did I say the 'always' you've just quoted me as saying?

Hahahaha. It's because I can read that I knew your "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold." wasn't in the standard that you pointed me towards with such sadly misplaced arrogance.

But it wan't me pointing to a standard that didn't have the words claimed in, was it?

But if we increase the efficiency of vacuums that's 7 power stations across the EU that don't need to be built or "extensioned" at all. Keep up.

Well, clearly, competition does NOT provide the motive. Were that the case then competition would already have driven this change and governments and parliaments would not be resorting to using legislation to drive the necessary improvements.

The average consumer who walked into a store in the past typically did not buy their electric goods based on their efficiency. They couldn't since that information just wasn't available to them.

Many would no doubt have proceeded on the basis that "higher power" meant "better ability" to do the task and would have opted for less efficient but higher power appliances over more efficient and lower power appliances. Thus the manufacturers would have little incentive to produce more efficient products. After all, if they sold you a product that, due to being less energy efficient, caused you to run up a higher electricity bill than was strictly necessary, it was you, not them, who paid for this.

Clearly it does!! Manufacturers obviously wan't to sell their products , so they compete by introducing the best or cheapest product in that field.
Governments ALWAYS have to legislate for minimum standards - particularly with safety in mind......but the efficiency of products is down to the manufacturers. If they produce a poor performing product then they will not sell it - and that is a recipe for going out of business.
I doubt that many product users endeavour to 'cost' their frequent , (or infrequent), 30 min or so vacuuming usage.
They will certainly consider how effective it is - which may well then decide whether or not they replace it with the same brand when that time comes. I wasn't using the high efficiency element from a users view point, I was using the 'effectiveness' quality, and with an ' inefficient' hoover, the same 'design' would be more effective with a more powerful motor - and effectiveness will certainly trump efficiency in terms of the product's where users are concerned......provided the price is competitive too.

You haven't proved it is 'dodgy' - and not only do you appear to be ignorant - you constantly prove it! Regulations establish minimum required standards, which manufacturers have to meet - but THAT alone, will not address the product's 'popularity'.

I've already told you - I didn't quote you.


Haha - clearly you don't understand - because cucumbers that didn't meet the minimum standard couldn't be .........at not to the public , unless used in a prepared product.

That listed the minimum required standard......what you you believe that means - and while you are trying to think, perhaps YOU could define what constitutes 'abnormal
curvature - because that stupid piece of legislation didn't! No wonder it was withdrawn!

.Stop being so silly - YOU claimed new plant is expensive - and it would be cheaper to refit were possible to save expense.
Really - doesn't all this influx of migrants to the EU use vacuum cleaners then??

Oh dear. he we go again, you thinking no-one can see what you just posted, here is the EVIDENCE of you putting 'always' in quotes:


And, when I asked where I'd said 'always' before:

You didn't tell me you didn't quote me, you just blustered as ever, here's the EVIDENCE:


So when you said "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold." you were, in other words, wrong.

None of which is relevant.

Er, new plant is expensive, and whilst it may cheaper to refit it's still cheaper to use more efficient vacuums and not have to spend the money at all.

Depends what you mean by "prove". If you won't accept a copy of the actual standard, which doesn't contain the words "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold." then you are way beyond help.

vvvvvvv

Here:

The 'always' is in quotes, clue's in the name. If you were quoting someone else in your reply to me you should have said who you were quoting.

Yes - but why do you falsely assume that I am quoting YOU. Even a cretin would realise that YOU would NOT accuse yourself of not providing evidential support for the tripe that you post......especially as it is normally just that!

Oh stop being so crass - where did I say I quoted you!! I am the one that has constantly claimed that you never provide evidence . Evidence is obviously not available to support your baseless opinions - only actual FACTS. can do that.
Evidence is REQUIRED to support the basis of opinions - especially were you are concerned, because 'ALL' you post is biased opinion!

For example - prove that your so called neocon site was telling lies - just because it s 'right wing' doesn't make it so - despite your opinion.

Yet another baseless opinion - not supported by facts #
However - here is a 'fact' for you to mull over -

Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, with effect from 1 July 2008, the provisions of Council Regulation (EC) No 1182/2007 (3), which lays down specific rules as regards the fruit and vegetable sector, without calling into question the underlying policy choices. These provisions state that fruit and vegetables which are intended to be sold fresh to the consumer, may only be marketed if they are sound, fair and of marketable quality and if the country of origin is indicated. In the interest of harmonisation of the implementation of this provision, it is appropriate to define these characteristics in providing for a general marketing standard for all fresh fruits and vegetables.


It most certainly is - even though you don't appear to realise what standards are for!!

Er - is is far cheaper to just replace the boilers, or the turbines, which are the 'vulnerable' items - and the output is about 3 times cheaper than say wind turbines - particularly the off shore ones.

Well, the 'your' directly in front of it addressed to me is one huge clue. But if it wasn't me you were quoting with those quote marks who were those quote marks quoting?

Oh FFS I didn't say you said I quoted you, I just said you quoted me. I cited the post in which you were replying to me with "your [addressed directly to me] 'always' [in quotes, see?]". So if you weren't quoting me in your reply to me with a word on quotes who were you quoting with that quote!

The facts are you quoted "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold." and with hilariously misplaced arrogance referred me to the standard when I queried it. The other fact is that that sentence isn't in the standard.

Right so now the EU are bad for not letting people sell things that are not of marketable quality?

What is cheapest is to not have the 7 power stations at all and have more efficient vacuum cleaners. The fact that you continue to argue this point is quite bizarre.

Of course it was clearly addressed to YOU - because it is YOU that never provides credible evidence for your assertions - the quotation marks were undoubtedly unnecessary, and grammatically incorrect, but they also clearly did not , and could not, suggest that it was a quote from yourself.
If anything, the quote would have been MINE - because I am constantly pointing out that you [i]"NEVER["/I], support your claims.
The single quotation marks were simply a poor grammatical attempt to emphasise your habit of not supporting your claims.

Oh FFS - get somebody to read what I posted! I didn't say that you quoted me!!!

No - the FACTS are, that I never claimed that it WAS a direct quote from the standard - I did incorrectly assume however, that you had the sense to figure out that produce that didn't meet the required standards could not be sold directly to the public.....which incidentally is confirmed by the last regulation reference I posted.

Nope - for stupidly not allowing them to buy any that are of 'abnormal curvature'.......without defining what that is - because they merely want to eat it, not hang them on the wall! If the price is right.........they would obviously buy it.


Nonsense. If expense is the main criterion, then it would be of much bigger economic benefit by continuing to produce electricity via coal powered stations.

Despite incurring much more expensive power generation costs, we are not preventing atmos. levels from increasing are we???

Your problem is that what you did post is still there for all to see, instead of explaining that you pointed me to that standard which contained no such quote.

It was only when you asked me how such produce could be bought or sold I pointed out that retail was not the only channel for sales.

You then tried to pretend that you'd earlier explained yourself but backed down when asked to commit to this.

Of course I've repeatedly showed quotes a EVIDENCE of all of this, you've provided none, because there are none.

The standard was requested by the industry for packing reasons.

You've not understood what the issue is here at all, that's why we prefer people like the EU who can comprehend these things making decisons instead of people like yourself in a referendum.

The biggest economic benefit comes from producing more efficient vacuums and not needing those seven power stations at all.

Any chance you could post a link re - 7 new power stations required if we do not use more efficient vacuum cleaners?

Don't hold your breath for that from this one.

No, clearly it does not.

Were competition sufficient to achieve a particular result (be that energy efficiency or safety), there would NEVER be a need for governments to legislate for standards. Unless you are trying to argue that every government in the world is wrong about legislating for standards then it is clear that competition is NOT sufficient to acheive such results.

And consumers standing in a shop can't make an assessment on how effective a device is unless such information is available to them and that does require government legislation both to measure it (to a given standard) and to ensure it is available for consumers (mandatory labelling).

Then I can only repeat - common sense would dictate that it does!



I never claimed that it was 'sufficient', so don't put words 'into my mouth', as they say. And frankly, it is ridiculous to claim that ' there would NEVER be a need for governments to legislate for standards' - because there is a 'minimum standard' that has to be established to ensure required safety considerations are met. However, that doesn’t detract whatsoever from the fact that product manufacturers are competing with other producers, and have to chase effectiveness, and competitive prices for their products.
In fact, herewith the results of a survey, indicated that reliability, quality and durability were rated as the most important buying criteria, with 80% of survey respondents stating that they desired a minimum of a two-year guarantee as standard, ( reliability).


http://www.wrap.org.uk/sites/files/w...012%202014.pdf




Lol - are you seriously claiming that the majority of prospective product purchasers do not do their ‘homework’ before making a purchase - and search for owner reviews and recommendations. Nowadays, there is a great deal of product consumer reviews available for potential consumers - and we certainly have no need to be in a political Union to do that!!