OT First robot car fatality.

Your cameras can't, not all cameras can't!

Reply to
dennis
Loading thread data ...

En el artículo , Cursitor Doom escribió:

D i m is ... dim.

I do hope discussion in here isn't gonna be coloured by Brexit/Bremain argument for much longer and we can get back to some semblance of normality, such as discussing the merits of angle grinders.

Reply to
Mike Tomlinson

Sincerely agreed.

Reply to
Capitol

I fully agree with that sentiment. It just seems that some people here HATE democracy so much they want to impose their own minority view over everybody else because they believe for some obscure reason that they're smarter and better educated than those who voted Leave.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Brian, I have always relied on those 'friends' who cannot wait for new tech so they can buy in.

I much prefer the views and experiences of the ordinary person :-)

Reply to
RayL12

There are, of course, a lot of foreign trailers on our roads today. On any trip out going further than the shops, I can expect to see at least one Dutch lorry delivering to florists or nurseries and probably half a dozen other EU lorries, usually German or Polish, with the occasional Norbert Dentressangle (French) or Waberer's (Hungarian).

That, of course, is one of the things the EU regulates, to ensure conformity across the member states - industrial and product safety. The other main areas relate to trade between the states, covering agriculture, industry and commerce. In other areas, such as crime, health or traffic, the individual states are largely left to their own devices.

The EU generally does not create legislation in a vacuum. Having decided upon a course of action, it looks to see whether any of the member states have already addressed the issue and then cherry picks the best ideas. As we are really quite good at generating legislation of our own, it is inevitable that we have influenced a number of pieces of EU legislation.

Reply to
Nightjar

Agreed. I also see them pretty regularly and am out in all weathers turning them round when they blindly follow their GPS's up to the dead end outside here. ;-(

Yes, and all those points are often conveniently forgotten by those blindly trying to go ahead on just their single 'crusade'. ;-(

We also have the advantages of 'cross border' police to be able to extradite terrorists and the like.

Ding. ;-)

I'm not sure 'it' ever comes up with anything does it? We (the member states) request something *of* the EU (because in turn, enough of our population have requested it) and it flows back out from there?

Sure, once the ball is rolling etc.

Exactly (and apparently *we* have influenced the vast majority). That's why unpicking all the EU legislation from the UK stuff is going to be such a massive task (and yet another burden and COST, just when we didn't need it). ;-(

Cheers, T i m

p.s. I wonder how many of what are seen as 'EU' rules were instigated by us in the first place? I know when my Dad used to attend British Standard meetings in Europe on any new rules and regs re Industrial Lifting and Handling equipment, 'some' of the participant countries appeared less than 'involved' in the whole process. When my Dad asked them (in private) why this was the case, the general reply was that they weren't going to take any notice of them in any case. So, do you think they would be the ones trying to introduce any new safety related rules or regs? ;-(

Reply to
T i m

And I have always relied on those who can wait, but still bought it.

If, after 5 years it's still stable, I consider buying it.

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

If only. The EU sets itself out to be a barrier between people and companies in different countries trying to conduct productive commerce. These parasitic Eurocrats make their money from interfering in commerce and charging hard working, enterprising people a fortune for granting them permissions and licences to do what previously they could freely do without having to negotiate mountains of red tape and a maze of loony regulations.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Hey, I didn't realise you were a hypocrite *as well* (as a loser) as you only wanted to talk about d-i-y?

Oh, what part of the following makes you think the EU *want* to get involved in any of it (you might have to get nursey to explain it to you). ;-)

" GLYPHOSATE THE CURRENT POSITION

No doubt you are aware there is considerable attention being paid to the EU glyphosate renewal. It has been highlighted in the press on a National and Global level.

Glyphosate as an active substance is due to expire on the 30th June

2016 and so for products to remain on the market into 2017 the AS approval must be either renewed for up to 15 years or extended for a shorter period until further studies are evaluated. As the world?s largest pesticide, glyphosate is very high profile. There is a lot of pressure coming from NGOs to prevent the renewal. The campaign by the NGOs has gained a lot of traction politically, despite the fact that the European Food Safety Authority has concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose hazards to humans.

It is a battle of politics versus science. The EU Commission has tried to stay out of it by relying on the member states to perform their role and collectively make the renewal decision. The result is 20 of the 28 MSs are in favour of renewal, while 7 are abstaining and Malta is against. Abstaining is counted as a negative and as this group includes Germany, France and Italy the overall result does not reach qualified majority (need to represent >65% of EU population, as well as at least 55% of the member states.

If the qualified majority vote cannot be reached by member states, the decision will be pushed back on the EU Commission. As the Commission are not appointed by an election process it is much more likely they will make a decision based on science rather than politics and take into consideration the importance of glyphosate to agriculture. This would either be to renew glyphosate for up to 15 years, or more likely to extend the current approval for ~18 months until further studies can be evaluated and Europe has a definitive scientific position.

Regards The Chemigro Team snipped-for-privacy@chemigro.co.uk"

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

Generally, when it's obsolete, it's reliable!

Reply to
Capitol

It's obsolete after 10 years usually.

If its 'tech'

After 5 years its merely 'cheap';-)

Reply to
The Natural Philosopher

Certainly not my experience of dealing with Europe. Perhaps you could provide a specific example?

Reply to
Nightjar

On 03-Jul-16 10:08 AM, T i m wrote: ...

I can't find that anybody has looked at that question. However, I suspect that it will be between us and the Germans as to whom the EU has most taken inspiration from when framing regulations. :-)

The only ones I know of offhand are the Common Fisheries Policy, which was largely based upon UK conservation measures (which will probably come as a nasty shock to all those fishermen who wanted out of the EU because of the CFP), the trailer side bars already mentioned and the Medical Devices Directive. When I first heard of the last, I expected a huge amount of work, but it was almost a straight take from the DoH guidelines. Of course, ISO 9000, which will be referenced by just about anything to do with quality control, started out as an almost straight copy of BS 5750.

Reply to
Nightjar

Ok.

So I wonder why some whine and bleat about 'the EU' regulating this and that when the chances are it's (as you say) partly down to us in the first place?

And I understand many of the Uk fishermen sold their fishing rights to foreigners in any case!

Oooerr? Well, I guess if their sole purpose is to save lives then it makes sense?

As yet, apart from non-issues, no one has actually come up with a single example where any EU rule could be considered 'a bad thing' (and considering we probably introduced many of them in any case).

Again, Dad produced his companies QA Manual (for BS 5750) and a Co I worked at was also 5750 accredited.

Cheers, T i m

Reply to
T i m

I was involved in both BSI and IEC at the time of ISO9000. It is largely a waste of space. It defined in glorious box ticking terms the lowest possible standard which you could make a product to and if you wanted real quality and reliability, you ignored it.

Reply to
Capitol

Nothing you'd find acceptable, obviously.

Reply to
Cursitor Doom

Why would I need to find it acceptable, whatever that is supposed to mean?

As I said, it is not my experience, but I used to make sterile medical devices, which were heavily regulated by the Department of Health. Hence, for me, the involvement of the EU meant that the DoH rules were replaced by the almost identical Medical Devices Directive and I went from complying with BS 5750 to the almost identical ISO 9000. As none of the other businesses I know had any problems either, I was wondering in which field these apparently quite specific complaints applied.

Reply to
Nightjar

On 03-Jul-16 10:17 PM, Capitol wrote: ...

I wouldn't disagree with that. As first implemented, ISO 9000 (and BS5750 before it) would allow you to make complete rubbish, provided that you carefully documented that was the standard of product you were making. That was why medical devices had to meet another British Standard that expanded on BS 5750 and set minimum quality standards. It wasn't until the 2000 revision that those elements were incorporated into ISO 9000 and the concept of continuous improvement was added.

Reply to
Nightjar

So do I. I think it is mostly just a convenient bogeyman summoned into existence by those looking for something to campaign on. Rather like Enoch Powell's "Rivers of Blood", or Joe McCarthy's communists before that.

I rather enjoyed the Patrick Stewart video where he is told that the European Human Rights directive is derived from British rules developed post-Nuremburg.

Reply to
newshound

HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.