And your problem is your absolutely pathetic understanding of the written word. Your ridiculous responses make that exceedingly clear. Why don't you show confirmation of your lying claim that I stated it was in the standard?
Sensible people would be able to infer from the written standard that such products were unable to be sold direct to the public - as confirmed by the last EU reference I posted.

Nonsense - selling to non -retail producers is NOT selling yo the direct public which was the point of that stupid regulation. The 'pie' producers could buy these over 'bendy' products , because they were not going to sell them direct to the public - they would cut the veg/fruit up and use that



That's your biggest lie of all. You still confuse your opinions with facts - no matter how much you risibly bleat to the contrary.

Still irrelevant - the details of the regulations were ridiculous - as subsequently proven by the wide criticism , and it's repeal - which clearly endorses the fact that it was 'needless' .

The EU are not people - and only an idiot would suggest that there is anything uniquely sensible about the EU, from the UK's perspective . Non- thinkers like yourself , don't care two hoots about democracy -and would much prefer to me members of the USSE. You are entitled to hold that opinion, but not entitled to continually lie about the 'need' for it. It is a totally unnecessary, and very expensive as well as being an undemocratic political union, which neither you, nor any other Europhile have been able to justify.
The only benefit to be derived is from free trade - and that could easily be achieved by having a FTA - but of course , the Commissars would lose their fabulous fortunes wouldn't they?
Fortunately there were more sensible people involved in the referendum than there are soviet style worshippers in the UK.

.
Rubbish - not all 'cleaning ' is done at the same time - so to claim that hypothetical 7 more power stations would be needed needed is just more EU worshipping nonsense.
The UK's power capacity is over 40 terrabytes, whereas, your ridiculous theoreticlal example of a 23.5 million dwellings instantaneously requiring 2HP would be within that capacity by 14% - so your requirement for another 7 power stations is nonsense. - and as usual from yourself, unsupported by credible evidence.
That isn't to say that the UK power generation capacity is not at a critical level - but that is partly down to the EU's ridiculous, and impractical policy of saving the plant!!
Apparently, last winter came very close to causing power cuts - and we will have seemingly reduced our generation capacity since then - so even without your ridiculous 'power needed' surge, it is certainly possible that there will be insufficient capacity to cope.
EU impractical Ultra PC requirements, coupled with weak UK governments can be rightly blamed for that .

]

Looks like I got the figure wrong, it's four power stations or the emissions from 8 existing ones, I might have got the seven figure from the saving if the EU had been allowed to do the same for kettles and irons:

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topic...acuum-cleaners

http://ec.europa.eu/archives/rebutta...ners-ever.html

Blimey, sorry for being out all day - makes me hope you support the team I saw us spanking today.

What team do you support, and, who did you beat today??

Sure:

Here's EVIDENCE of where you posted the quote:

And when I asked for a credible link for that you directed me to:


"Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold." To infer "direct to the public" would not be sensible, it would be stupid, because that's not what was said or implied by the sentence "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold."

There's a full stop at the end of the sentence, "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold [full stop]".

Yeah, right, see above.

Only to you with your fake foreign propaganda additions to it.

All that bluster just to cover up the fact that you didn't know the vacuum regs had efficiency requirements as well as power.

Or we could just use less electricity to do the same thing. And the power station thing, corrected now, was for the whole of the EU, not just the UK.

This article suggests Mr Juncker would like to go ahead with a ban on certain electrical appliances.

https://www.rt.com/uk/342657-kettle-toaster-eu-ban/

A bit too much information. Let's just say that I might be too easy to pick out on a worse season at a more distant away end terrace.

Ahh Ok, I have never set foot in a football stadium in my life, except when I had to work in one

I think the EU have shelved plans to mandate more efficient kettles and toasters. So the higher pollution, electricity bills and reliance on imported energy from outside the will continue.

Now, where does the EU import much of its energy from and where was that inflammatory article from?

And your life may be much happier as a result.

William Keegan hits the back of the net e Brexit:

https://www.theguardian.com/business...t-us-fast-show

The last thing that the Europeans we are supposed to be “negotiating with” are prepared to do is let Britain off lightly: they are rightly terrified about a domino effect. It is “Brexit or nothing”. Yet in the fantasy land of current British politics, Brexiters and others are kidding themselves into believing that the others do not mean what they say. All this stuff about “soft Brexits” and “medium Brexits” is pie in the sky. I can hear Paul Whitehouse, in a revival of The Fast Show, asking: “How do you like your Brexit, madam? Rare or medium – or perhaps well done?”

The fact is that at present, by being members of the EU but not of the seriously troubled eurozone, Britain has the best of both worlds. Too many people are caving in to the view that, in a non-binding referendum, “the people have spoken”.

As I keep telling you - you are incapable of providing evidence for ANYTHING!! I have told you, that the paragraph was highlighted because it was a quote from an International Policy Council; when you asked where it came from, I referred you to the EU regulation no - expecting someone to read it to you, from which , it could be concluded, as the International Policy Council did - that it banned certain products from direct sale to the public - which you claimed wasn't correct. . So I then provided 'as clear as daylight ' evidence that you were, as usual, absolutely incorrect, by posting another EU regulation - Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, which lays down specific rules with regards to the selling of fruit and vegetable.

One didn't have to 'infer' anything - As usual, there was a host of regulation pertinent to fruit and veg, and you have seen one at least which actually spelled out clearly the retail involvement - but one won't be able to find a definition of 'abnormal curvature' anywhere in the regs......now how daft is that???

Nonsense - retailers have to be totally aware of what they can and cannot do - even wrt stupid regulations --- ignorance is no defence etc..


Of course it's 'foreign' ....it is an International Council. - but, maybe you just don't understand the meaning of the word 'propaganda'.


Crap - the issue we were debating was associated with that stupid comment of yours about IF multi - million housewives wanted to switche on their vacuum cleaners, having all bought new ones which were 2HP more powerful, we would require another 7 power stations.

Well maybe you would really like to change your ingrained habits - and actually provide credible evidence of another one of your wild claims.

It WAS supposedly a EU regulation ------and the idea is fine - if the more efficient machines are available - but if not, those carpets will probably be dirtier, and cause more problems for asthmatics.

Indeed - that is an undoubted concern to them - but they cannot 'hurt' the UK without hurting themselves - and the basis of that 'hurt' would be that we would trade with the EU on the same terms as we currently conduct trade with the majority of our global trade.
And to claim that we have the best of both worlds is nonsense.
Why the hell do we need another expensive Parliament, mostly not elected by ourselves, cede control of our borders , and have an Executive that consists of unelected persons. The benefit we currently derive, is via free trade - an FTA would be far better, and cheaper to administer - and, we would have the ability to make our own trade deals with non-EU countries, factoring what benefits the UK, not an EU 'average'.
Now that is a win-win situation.

No, the public wasn't mentioned. I'll repeat the EVIDENCE that you are worryingly psychologically incapable of acknowledging:

No mention of retail, when asked for a credible link for the quote you said:

Which didn't contain the quote.

Or any mention of retail.

A different regulation that has zero bearing,

More irrelevant diversion. We're talking about one regulation. Stick to it.

You've made a cut and paste error and added something that wasn't in my post.

Er, just because it says it's an "international policy council" doesn't mean it doesn't have the interests of one nation at heart and not this one. It exists to promote US interests, a mission you seem quite keen to help it in, against our best interests. Of course, you might just be a loyal US citizen helping your country.

<sigh> I've already admitted I got the seven wrong and have provided evidence for the claim of four power stations. You don't seem to be able to see anything I post.

Well, if the more efficient machines weren't available there would be no vacuums in the shops.

And the carpets probably won't be as big a problem for asthmatics as four power stations.

Sadly, once again you prove that you are incapable of conducting an adult debate. You must live in a dream world - and despite your claim, you never provide credible evidence, ( which by definition is impossible where you are concerned), If you owned up to being wrong - it must have been on another forum - but even your 'claimed' 4 power stations, which hasn't been posted here to my knowledge, could always prove me wrong by you pointing out the post.....but even if you had, I doubt it would contain 'credible' evidence.

Incidentally, to ease your difficulty in understanding reference to the public - I have highlighted, and repeated the the give away line in Regulation (EC) No 1234/2007, that you referenced - B]which are intended to be sold fresh to the consumer,[/b]

The consumer IS the public - not the retailer, wholesaler etc.......and selling to the consumer is RETAIL

Are people still talking about cucumbers? Whats happening an epidemic of boris johnston syndrome?

Cumumbers are not an issue. They are not a relevant example of the EU being negative. The whole time we have been in the EU i have had access to as much cucumber as i want.

This is just the sort of thing which has been inflated in peoples mind to make them think of the EU as some sort of bogieman.

You really can't get anything right, can you? Here,again, is the EVIDENCE [that you still laughably say I never provide]:


Your standards for "credible" are somewhat different from normal people. So you believe a foreign propaganda institute over the the text of the actual standard.

And that still doesn't justify your "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold [full stop]" because that neither mentions nor implies retail.

Edit: And is a different regulation entirely anyway! Here's the EVIDENCE:

Even hard Brexit could be a problem as WTO membership isn't a shoe in (though I was under the impression the UK didn't need to apply) :

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7468766.html

Brexit Britain’s drive for a new World Trade Organisation settlement could be blocked by countries with which the UK has territorial disputes such as Argentina or Spain, experts warned today.

The UK will need unanimous agreement from all the WTO’s 160-odd members for its new “schedule” to set baselines for future trade deals.

But specialists at the Institute of Export told The Independent some countries may use the opportunity to force the UK to compromise on other issues.

I believe your 'lmpression' is nearer the mark - as if no ensuing post - Btrexit trade deal can be agreed with the EU, then WTO rules will automatically apply......and WTO rules provide for non-discrimination in tariffs, and in addition, do not allow punitive measures to be taken by any WTO country.....which is the majority.

Clearly your helpers are not being very helpful to you are they? But I had thought that even you had sufficient sense to understand a clear explanation- but obviously not!!
Incidentally, you didn't address that post to me - and I don't always read the tripe that you post to other forum users - but, as I have said - you HAVEN'T provided evidence at all - you have only provided a EU report on vacuum efficiencies etc - which clearly relates the TWh to improved efficiencies - and is NOT related to HP - and it actually emphasises that it is NOT HP which relates to the efficiency of a cleaner - so I'll ask again, where is the evidence to support your 4/8 or undecided additional power stations to meet a mythical, and never to be experienced 'event'.

Well it is up to you to credibly demonstrate that an International Council are a) propagandising and b) wrong...and I did send you an EU Reg which you laughably do not understand because you don't realise the 'consumers' are the public.


. I did qualify that - and the public WERE prevented from purchasing such products, as verified by that other EU reg link - but even though you don't seem to understand the 'application' of minimum standards, that patently stupid regulation clearly confused many people with not defining 'abrnormal curvature'

You've already been told that there are many regulations produced for the various sectors - many interrelated - but how strange that an 'EU regulation expert' such as yourself should so strongly disagree with those actually involved in growing the product'.
Why didn't you tell them they were wrong!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/poli...egetables.html


By Bruno Waterfield in Brussels 12:00AM GMT 12 Nov 2008
Curvy cucumbers, knobbly carrots, wonky aubergines and ugly artichokes will go on sale in shops again after unpopular European Union rules dictating the size and shape of fruit and vegetables are scrapped.

A bunch of carrots. EU rules governing the sale of many vegetables are being scrapped
Carrots of any shape will be allowed as EU rules are scrapped
But the notorious regulation which dictates that "straight" bananas must be "free from malformation or abnormal curvature" will remain in place because "no objections from banana growers, buyers, traders or consumers have been received regarding this requirement".

The rules are being dropped to cut red tape after growing protests from supermarkets, grocers, and farmers, including the Prince of Wales, who have been forced to throw away produce that does not measure up to exacting requirements drawn up by eurocrats decades ago.

An estimated 20 per cent of the British harvest is thrown away to comply with the EU regulations, rules which have been calculated to add as much as 40 per cent to the price of some vegetables, such as carrots.
"Nature does not always comply with a perfectly rounded apple and poker-straight carrot. People should be given the chance to buy odd-shaped fruit and veg as they taste just as good," said NFU Horticulture board chairman Richard Hirst.

Commission officials, long mocked in the press for rules setting the appropriate curvature of cucumbers, are also concerned that at a time of high food prices and economic recession fruit and vegetables are being wasted "just because they are the wrong shape".

Two weeks ago, Sainsbury's was forced to ditch a healthy Halloween eating campaign built around "zombie brains" cauliflowers, "witches fingers" carrots and "ogres toenails" cucumbers - all misshapen vegetables that are currently banned from sale under EU rules.

Last June, Tim Down, a market trader in Bristol was prevented by food inspectors from selling kiwi fruits because they were 1mm smaller than EU rules allowed.
He lost £1,000 in sales and was not even permitted to give away the 5,000 fruits because they breached kiwi regulations.

The proposals would maintain specific marketing standards for: apples, citrus fruit, kiwi fruit, lettuces, peaches and nectarines, pears, strawberries, sweet peppers, table grapes and tomatoes.
But they can be relaxed if national trading standards authorities give the all clear and the produce is clearly labelled
Mr Down said: "In the EU, the fruit and veg looks much more natural. Even though it's a decision by the EU, we've implememented it more rigourously than in the EU.
"When I was stopped from selling kiwis last year - I was incredibly annoyed because it had 100 per cent of the recommended vitamins, despite being a tiny bit smaller.
"I am delighted with the decision. I feel vindicated, it's common sense at last in the face of EU bureacracy."
The rule changes will be implemented from July 1 next year.
One of the regulations to be scrapped includes guidelines that set down the stringent EU requirements for leeks, aubergines and courgettes.
"The white part of the leek must represent at least one-third of the total length or half the sheathed part," states the regulation.
"The difference between the smallest and largest aubergines in the same package must not exceed 20mm for elongated aubergines [and] 25mm for globus aubergines."
Neil Parish, a Conservative Euro-MP and chairman of the European Parliament's agriculture committee, said: "Food is food, no matter what it looks like. These crazy rules have to go immediately. To stop stores selling perfectly decent food during a food crisis is morally unjustifiable

You are rambling.

I didn't address that post to anyone, it was in reply to someone else though.

Then you are admitting that you make accusations without the facts. well done.

Er. have your read the link? Why are you talking about "HP"?

"The new rules will save 19 terawatt-hour per year by 2020, which is the electricity produced by more than 4 power plants"

You're doing your wrong quote thing again. The EU reg for cucumbers you pointed me to didn't have the text you quoted nor did it have the effect of that text. I'll remind you again, "Any cucumbers that are curvier may not be bought or sold [full stop]" does not make any differentiation between retail consumers or any other possible purchasers.

"other" as in a completely different regulation for completely different products. Or what we call an irrelevant diversion.

Dissembling again.

But these two aren't interrelated, it's just your dissembling again.

Because they're not, just you and the American Gatestone institute; the Telegraph, unlike you originally or the Gatestone Institute, specifically added the qualification "in shops"

But tariffs where there were no tariffs before is itself quite punitive.

Indeed, and the potential for a large increase with millions more customers will be available post Brexit - with many countries already lining up to proceed with negotiations - but, the EU tariff - free trade benefit is sadly greatly diminished by the EU Political Union , with it's undemocratic soviet styled unelected Commission, and the need to cede legislative authority to an unelected Executive, with its additional, and totally unnecessary extra tier of governance.
WHY is it necessary in order to obtain economic benefit from trade, to have to pay a huge social cost with the annual payment of an extortionate membership-fee/subsidy as well as elements of sovereignty, in order to obtain economic benefit from trade?

There aren't many countries in the world daft enough to do that!! - and to add a ludicrous additional tier of Parliament, in an attempt to disguise the undemocratic nature of the Union is totally unacceptable - which fortunately, the country has now woken up to.

You aren't the only one unable to offer a credible reason for continuing membership of this soviet construct ....but that isn't a great surprise.
You just blindly continue to ignore the obvious fact that outside of the EU, we would be free to negotiate, with a far larger community, trade deals more equitable for our own requirements - and, without having to pay a huge premium for that!!

The benefits gained would far outweigh the so called benefits obtained from the current, unnecessary membership of a political union in order to derive mutual benefit from trade.

Not sure what you're getting at here. Who are these additional customers we can't trade with at the moment?

To dump cheap goods on us.

It isn't. But having barrier free trade increases the economic benefit over and above just tariff free trade in goods.

If anyone could give any example of an existing deal that is less equitable for our own requirements and the likely cost of negotiating an improvement I might be interested.

Yet you can never outline any specific good or service that will benefit.

?? Those customers than we currently trade with via tariffs, which far outweigh those in the EU, with which there is a huge potential for far more advantageous trade deals.....and wrt to continuing trade with EU, we would gain on tariff income if the EU retained their trade balance advantage......and all without have to subsidise the EU, or be part of an unnecessary, and expensive political union.


Nope - they cannot do that unless the UK allows them to.


Don't disagree - but that is outweighed by the huge potential of beneficial GLOBAL agreements - without having the expensive trappings, and loss of control imposed by the political union EU Commissars - which have no place in endeavouring to achieve economic growth via trade.

They are fairly numerous - i.e - ALL FTA that have been arranged by countries outside of the EU....many of whom have access to the 'single market' without having to pay for the privilege.


Neither you nor I are knowledgeable wrt trade products value or range - but it is clear that the UK 'car' export s to the EU could be severely hit .... but that is just a relatively small, even though significant, element of our trade - and you continue to ignore the two- way effect, I don't believe the Germans will . I cannot see them just sitting back and watching their lucrative trade with the UK to erode ..... plus of course, we would be able to open our car export market to far more countries , and if we wished to, make the car tariffs far more competitive.
However - instead of passing the 'buck' onto others to list associated products that would benefit - why don't you list those products that you know an FT agreement outside of the EU will not improve the UK's export opportunities.....even if it didn't cover 'hidden barriers'......especially as the majority of our trade is conducted outside of the EU - AND, with the likelihood of GROWING, post Brexit.