In message <usuhrt$1hlus$3@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
>Am 13/03/2024 um 22:05 schrieb Cursitor Doom:
>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:41:25 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> This just in for the gammons from a gammon-approved source:
>>> https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-civil-service
>>>
>>> "The Brexit and the State report [...] describes the Brexit project as
>>> "very much a work in progress", despite the UK having voted to leave the
>>> EU nearly a decade ago. "
>>>
>>> Good luck with the "work in progress"! By 2356, we'll finally start
>>> cashing in the dividend.
>> As a proud, self-professed Gammon, I can say with 100% certainty
>>that
>> Brexit was:
>> A) A brilliant and bold move towards a better future
>> B) Betrayed by a Globalist Westminster incapable or unwilling to
>> deliver it.
>
>A proud gammon only last year asked me if we celebrate Christmas in Italy.
>
Well Christmas was banned in Scotland for 400 years until the 1950s.
Easter Monday still isn't a holiday in some parts. St Andrew's Day isn't
a big deal either. Your gammon would have got a different answer in
Scotland at one time.

Hang out one's washing on a Sunday is still frowned on though.

I yearn for these days.

Brian
--
Brian Howie

On 14 Mar 2024 at 10:05:31 GMT, Spike wrote:

>>> After all, it took some time after its implementation for the CAP to absorb
>>> 80% of Community resources and to become apparent to those that had no vote
>>> on it, such as those that had to pay for it.
>>
>> I think you get that figure from an unattributed wikipedia entry, and you've
>> cited it twice.
>
>> I don't think it's correct - but can't find accurate records apart from the EU
>> - who put the CAP budget at 65% in 1980, and 23% in 2022.
>
> IIRC the Wiki article mentions the 65% in 1980, but for some reason the EU
> figures carefully avoid mentioning the peak in the CAP proportion in the
> mid-80s. Not that the EU would be disingenuous about such a thing, of
> course.

Well yes, quite. I'd have thought the red tops would pounce on it if it was
wrong, though. Anyway, from a casual read it could be taken that 80% was
typical. Which it wasn't/isn't. Not that you meant to say it was of course ;-)
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

On 14 Mar 2024 at 10:34:23 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com> wrote:

> On 13/03/2024 16:45, Spike wrote:
>> Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> This just in for the gammons from a gammon-approved source:
>>> https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-civil-service
>>>
>>> "The Brexit and the State report [...] describes the Brexit project as
>>> "very much a work in progress", despite the UK having voted to leave the
>>> EU nearly a decade ago. "
>>>
>>> Good luck with the "work in progress"! By 2356, we'll finally start
>>> cashing in the dividend.
>>
>> We gave the EEC/EC/EU every chance, we were financing small and inefficient
>> French farms for 47 years.
>
> Britain had plenty of farmers in that category for decades
> too. Most of them have been replaced by 'hobby farmers'
> (do they still qualify for area payments?) who have sold
> their grotty 2 bed flat in London and become farmers (or
> moved to France and bought a Chateaux).
>
> Scotland still has small farmers, 'crofters'.
>
> No benefit cap on farmers.
>
> In 1970 a typical tractor was a David Brown 990 selectamatic,
> or similar costing just over £1000.

Are they still in the tractor business?

> Now farmers seem to 'need' to own massive 4wd John Deere tractors, where
> the cab costs many times more than a complete tractor did in 1970.

Don't these have satnav-guidance so if they're towing a plough the tractor
will plough exactly the required area including leaving the correct edge
strip?

And, en plus, is a 1970's style tractor going to be able to tow the effing
great trailer into which the combine has just regurgitated 10 tons of grain?

And. en plus (2), isn't all this kit often shared between many farmers or
rented out as needed? The combine we see round here certainly is.

And they're not hobby farmers around here, I can assure you.

--
The EU Parliament. The only parliament in the world that can neither initiate nor repeal legislation.

Robert Kimbell

In message <20240314092056.4d4ee350@jrenewsid.jretrading.com>, Joe
<joe@jretrading.com> writes
>On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 00:42:42 +0000
>David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:
>
>
>> So lets look at CE safety marking for
>> electrical goods. They introduced the UKCA mark, but if you export to
>> to the EU you needed CE as well, so double the cost for both
>> importers and exporters. No virtually abandoned after complaints from
>> business.
>>
>
>The EU is not the whole world. There are many other standards systems,
>e.g. UL and CSA, and a manufacturer has to comply with *all* of them in
>order to be able to export anywhere in the world. Get your magnifying
>glass and look at a Chinese AC adaptor, see how many standards
>organisations you can identify.
>
>Back before the EEC, the same situation existed, and anything
>manufactured to the relevant British Standard would need at most only a
>few minor tweaks to meet the others.
>
>Britain can now (if the government decides to permit industry in the
>UK) manufacture goods for elsewhere in the world which do not meet
>certain EU requirements e.g. power rating of vacuum cleaners. This was
>impossible before, as anything manufactured here, even for solely UK
>sale, had to comply with EU requirements.
>
Is that true? You can see the danger if EU countries made certain goods
'for export only' (in case they escaped into the EU market), but did the
EU rules actually effectively lock members out of supplying foreign
markets where customers' requirements deviated from EU specs?
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

Am 14/03/2024 um 10:40 schrieb Andrew:
> On 14/03/2024 10:00, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>> Am 13/03/2024 um 22:05 schrieb Cursitor Doom:
>>> On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 15:41:25 +0000, Ottavio Caruso
>>> <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This just in for the gammons from a gammon-approved source:
>>>> https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-civil-service
>>>>
>>>> "The Brexit and the State report [...] describes the Brexit project as
>>>> "very much a work in progress", despite the UK having voted to leave
>>>> the
>>>> EU nearly a decade ago. "
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with the "work in progress"! By 2356, we'll finally start
>>>> cashing in the dividend.
>>>
>>> As a proud, self-professed Gammon, I can say with 100% certainty that
>>> Brexit was:
>>>
>>> A) A brilliant and bold move towards a better future
>>>
>>> B) Betrayed by a Globalist Westminster incapable or unwilling to
>>> deliver it.
>>
>> A proud gammon only last year asked me if we celebrate Christmas in
>> Italy.
>>
>
> You should have also pointed out that the celebration involved
> the consumption of very quality gammon, unlike the 'reformed
> injected pink-dyed' slime that we have to make do with in the
> UK.

Stop it! Don't remind me of the succulent Christmas meals based on wild
boar meat or you'll see a grown up man crying!

--
Ottavio Caruso

Am 14/03/2024 um 12:12 schrieb brian:
> Well Christmas was banned in Scotland for 400 years until the 1950s.

Savages! But with the new Scottish leader from the Religion Of Peace, is
there a chance they'll ban it again? You know, "too many white faces"
and all that jazz.

--
Ottavio Caruso

In message <l5fu9vFigcU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
<tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>
>
>
>
>
>I don't know in detail what EU regulations have been scrapped, but AIUI some
>have been and I expect others will be as and when. Just as in the former
>colonies described in the article. Your 20% is just a figment of your vivid
>imagination.
>
Very few, I think. Wasn't Jacob Rees-Mogg given the job (to keep him out
of the way), but he only found a few rules and laws that could be
scrapped or modified without doing too much harm? Didn't his victories
include the legendary vacuum cleaner now being allowed to consume
megawatts, and something about some distance or other in one of the
Thames tunnels now being able to be indicated in yards instead of
metres? [So far, has anything of substance been changed?]
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

Am 14/03/2024 um 16:28 schrieb Ian Jackson:
> In message <l5fu9vFigcU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
> <tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know in detail what EU regulations have been scrapped, but
>> AIUI some
>> have been and I expect others will be as and when. Just as in the former
>> colonies described in the article. Your 20% is just a figment of your
>> vivid
>> imagination.
>>
> Very few, I think. Wasn't Jacob Rees-Mogg given the job (to keep him out
> of the way), but he only found a few rules and laws that could be
> scrapped or modified without doing too much harm? Didn't his victories
> include the legendary vacuum cleaner now being allowed to consume
> megawatts, and something about some distance or other in one of the
> Thames tunnels now being able to be indicated in yards instead of
> metres? [So far, has anything of substance been changed?]

The other problem with these super gammons like JRM is that they don't
practice what they preach? Isn't his financial estate tax-domiciled in
Ireland?

Aren't most the ERG just glorified non doms? What would they possibly
care if Britainshire goes down the drain?

--
Ottavio Caruso

On 14/03/2024 16:03, Ian Jackson wrote:
> but did the
> EU rules actually effectively lock members out of supplying foreign
> markets where customers' requirements deviated from EU specs?

Of course not. the EU was designed to protect European jobs, by
banishing imports to it, not prevent exports

--
You can get much farther with a kind word and a gun than you can with a
kind word alone.

Al Capone

Joe <joe@jretrading.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote

>>> If, every couple of years, we continue to have events like the
>>> above,

>> Not going to happen. The last equivalent pandemic was
>> 100 years earler and there hasnt been anything like the
>> ukraine for 70 year, let alone both at the same time.

> In case you hadn't noticed, the usual suspects including theWHO and
> Bill Gates are already talking up the next pandemic.

Doesn't mean that there will be one as
important as the spanish flu or covid.

> There is a treaty in progress that will hand over control of public
> health measures to the WHO if the *WHO* declares a pandemic.

Not going to happen.

> https://www.who.int/news-room/questions-and-answers/item/pandemic-prevention--preparedness-and-response-accord

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 20:55:09 +1100, RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:

> On 14 Mar 2024 at 00:42:42 GMT, David Wade wrote:
>
>> On 13/03/2024 22:20, Cursitor Doom wrote:
>>> On 13 Mar 2024 19:01:39 GMT, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 13 Mar 2024 at 17:19:09 GMT, "HVS" <office@REMOVETHISwhhvs.co.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 13 Mar 2024, Spike wrote
>>>>>
>>>>>> Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> This just in for the gammons from a gammon-approved source:
>>>>>>> https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-civil-service
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The Brexit and the State report [...] describes the Brexit
>>>>>>> project as "very much a work in progress", despite the UK having
>>>>>>> voted to leave the EU nearly a decade ago. "
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good luck with the "work in progress"! By 2356, we'll finally
>>>>>>> start cashing in the dividend.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We gave the EEC/EC/EU every chance, we were financing small and
>>>>>> inefficient French farms for 47 years.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We've only been out of it for just over four years, so there is
>>>>>> a long time to go before any kind of comparison can be drawn, 2067
>>>>>> in fact.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may well be correct, but could you point me to where someoone in
>>>>> the 2016 "Leave" campaign clarified that "It will take half a century
>>>>> before we can know if it's a success"?
>>>>
>>>> It's already a success: we are no longer subject to laws that we have
>>>> little
>>>> or no input to, devised by an entity over which we have little or no
>>>> practical
>>>> control, and certainly no method of removing or replacing. And see my
>>>> sig
>>>> below.
>>>
>>> Yes, but where is the big Bonfire of the Regulations we were supposed
>>> to be *well* into by now? ISTR they codified something to the effect
>>> that EU law would still be observed over the period of transition for
>>> the sake of stability and commercial certainty (which was only common
>>> sense) but this government should have been at least 20% through the
>>> striking-out phase by this time.
>>>
>>
>> It fell flat on its face. So lets look at CE safety marking for
>> electrical goods. They introduced the UKCA mark, but if you export to to
>> the EU you needed CE as well, so double the cost for both importers and
>> exporters. No virtually abandoned after complaints from business.
>>
>> The same with a huge percentage of the regulations. Pointless as
>> exporters need to follow them.
>>
>> Then we are no longer in the Pet Passport scheme. The replacement is
>> hugely more complicated.
>>
>
> Indeed - that standardisation meant that we could compete for european
> *and*
> global business without the hurdles, plus take advantage of block
> negotiations
> under the EU - a major economic force. When you control a sixth (20%) of
> the
> world economy, trading partners take notice.
>
> I'd add this (AIUI) was the key reason Corbyn wanted to leave the EU -
> we were
> very effectively screwing less developed nations.
>
> Now it's just the UK - just over 3% of the global economy by GDP.
> Admittedly
> we have more control over our present and future.

> It's just that as a country we're going to be significantly worse off.

That remains to be seen.

>>>> Me, I've lived for several years under three different flavours of
>>>> democratic
>>>> systems. Ours, that of the Yankees, and that of a northern European
>>>> continental country (Switzerland). Generally, I prefer ours. Is it
>>>> perfect?
>>>> Not by a long shot (as we see daily), but at least we can replace the
>>>> entity
>>>> driving it.

> I think you're overstating the control ther EU had over UK life, and what
> little I follow of the rewritten laws and regulations look like simple
> rebranding to me.

But the UK had significantly more important
issues with covid and illegals at the time. And
now for the Torys, being able to still be the govt.

> But if you think what we've got is making you and yours happier, go for
> it.

>>> ... and end up with another bunch of useless cunts every bit as
>>> incompetent.
>>
>> Something like that....

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:10:17 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Kerr-Mudd,John addressing the auto-contradicting senile cretin:
"Auto-contradictor Rod is back! (in the KF)"
MID: <XnsA97071CF43E3Fadmin127001@85.214.115.223>

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:32:10 +1100, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 14 Mar 2024 at 10:34:23 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 13/03/2024 16:45, Spike wrote:
>>> Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> This just in for the gammons from a gammon-approved source:
>>>> https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-civil-service
>>>>
>>>> "The Brexit and the State report [...] describes the Brexit project as
>>>> "very much a work in progress", despite the UK having voted to leave
>>>> the
>>>> EU nearly a decade ago. "
>>>>
>>>> Good luck with the "work in progress"! By 2356, we'll finally start
>>>> cashing in the dividend.
>>>
>>> We gave the EEC/EC/EU every chance, we were financing small and
>>> inefficient
>>> French farms for 47 years.
>>
>> Britain had plenty of farmers in that category for decades
>> too. Most of them have been replaced by 'hobby farmers'
>> (do they still qualify for area payments?) who have sold
>> their grotty 2 bed flat in London and become farmers (or
>> moved to France and bought a Chateaux).
>>
>> Scotland still has small farmers, 'crofters'.
>>
>> No benefit cap on farmers.
>>
>> In 1970 a typical tractor was a David Brown 990 selectamatic,
>> or similar costing just over £1000.

> Are they still in the tractor business?

Nope
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brown_Ltd.#Sale_of_David_Brown_Tractors_to_Case_1972

>> Now farmers seem to 'need' to own massive 4wd John Deere tractors, where
>> the cab costs many times more than a complete tractor did in 1970.
>
> Don't these have satnav-guidance so if they're towing a plough the
> tractor
> will plough exactly the required area including leaving the correct edge
> strip?

Satnav isnt that accurate

> And, en plus, is a 1970's style tractor going to be able to tow the
> effing
> great trailer into which the combine has just regurgitated 10 tons of
> grain?
>
> And. en plus (2), isn't all this kit often shared between many farmers or
> rented out as needed? The combine we see round here certainly is.
>
> And they're not hobby farmers around here, I can assure you.

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:28:59 +1100, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <l5fu9vFigcU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
> <tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I don't know in detail what EU regulations have been scrapped, but AIUI
>> some
>> have been and I expect others will be as and when. Just as in the former
>> colonies described in the article. Your 20% is just a figment of your
>> vivid
>> imagination.
>>
> Very few, I think. Wasn't Jacob Rees-Mogg given the job (to keep him out
> of the way), but he only found a few rules and laws that could be
> scrapped or modified without doing too much harm? Didn't his victories
> include the legendary vacuum cleaner now being allowed to consume
> megawatts, and something about some distance or other in one of the
> Thames tunnels now being able to be indicated in yards instead of
> metres? [So far, has anything of substance been changed?]

Yep, the UK gets to decide which EUians it allows to move to the UK

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:22:39 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:45:50 +1100, blacky, better known as cantankerous
trolling senile geezer Rodent Speed, wrote:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

--
Pomegranate Bastard addressing the trolling senile cretin from Oz:
"Surely you can find an Australian group to pollute rather than posting
your unwanted guff here."
MID: <c1pqvgte5ldlo1rn3fpl7igtg4h8i9mk7p@4ax.com>

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 07:49:47 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

<FLUSH the abnormal trolling senile cretin's latest trollshit unread>

On 14/03/2024 20:49, Rod Speed wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:28:59 +1100, Ian Jackson
> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In message <l5fu9vFigcU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
>> <tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I don't know in detail what EU regulations have been scrapped, but
>>> AIUI some
>>> have been and I expect others will be as and when. Just as in the former
>>> colonies described in the article. Your 20% is just a figment of your
>>> vivid
>>> imagination.
>>>
>> Very few, I think. Wasn't Jacob Rees-Mogg given the job (to keep him
>> out of the way), but he only found a few rules and laws that could be
>> scrapped or modified without doing too much harm? Didn't his victories
>> include the legendary vacuum cleaner now being allowed to consume
>> megawatts, and something about some distance or other in one of the
>> Thames tunnels now being able to be indicated in yards instead of
>> metres? [So far, has anything of substance been changed?]
>
> Yep, the UK gets to decide which EUians it allows to move to the UK

So we no longer allow them, instead we take workers from further East
who will work for less, provided we let them bring their families...

On 14/03/2024 22:44, David Wade wrote:
> On 14/03/2024 20:49, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:28:59 +1100, Ian Jackson
>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <l5fu9vFigcU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
>>> <tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know in detail what EU regulations have been scrapped, but
>>>> AIUI some
>>>> have been and I expect others will be as and when. Just as in the
>>>> former
>>>> colonies described in the article. Your 20% is just a figment of
>>>> your vivid
>>>> imagination.
>>>>
>>> Very few, I think. Wasn't Jacob Rees-Mogg given the job (to keep him
>>> out of the way), but he only found a few rules and laws that could be
>>> scrapped or modified without doing too much harm? Didn't his
>>> victories include the legendary vacuum cleaner now being allowed to
>>> consume megawatts, and something about some distance or other in one
>>> of the Thames tunnels now being able to be indicated in yards instead
>>> of metres? [So far, has anything of substance been changed?]
>>
>> Yep, the UK gets to decide which EUians it allows to move to the UK
>
> So we no longer allow them, instead we take workers from further East
> who will work for less, provided we let them bring their families...

The point is that we can now control the numbers if we want to - we
couldn't do much to limit EU numbers before. UK governments can at least
now be held responsible for the numbers and voted out for not
controlling them to a reasonable level.

On 14 Mar 2024 at 22:56:17 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk> wrote:

> On 14/03/2024 22:44, David Wade wrote:

>> So we no longer allow them, instead we take workers from further East
>> who will work for less, provided we let them bring their families...
>
> The point is that we can now control the numbers if we want to - we
> couldn't do much to limit EU numbers before. UK governments can at least
> now be held responsible for the numbers and voted out for not
> controlling them to a reasonable level.

There is some hope that th epoliticos are taking note of the fact that the
population of this country has gone from about 50 million when I was a kid
(1950s) to 70 million now. That's almost 300k net a year. Small wonder there's
a housing shortage.

--
For me leaving the EU has always been a fundamental if abstract question of democratic accountability: disliking a transnational government it's impossible to kick out.

Iain Martin - The Times 24/11/2022

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 09:44:20 +1100, David Wade <g4ugm@dave.invalid> wrote:

> On 14/03/2024 20:49, Rod Speed wrote:
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 03:28:59 +1100, Ian Jackson
>> <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>> In message <l5fu9vFigcU1@mid.individual.net>, Tim Streater
>>> <tim@streater.me.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I don't know in detail what EU regulations have been scrapped, but
>>>> AIUI some
>>>> have been and I expect others will be as and when. Just as in the
>>>> former
>>>> colonies described in the article. Your 20% is just a figment of your
>>>> vivid
>>>> imagination.
>>>>
>>> Very few, I think. Wasn't Jacob Rees-Mogg given the job (to keep him
>>> out of the way), but he only found a few rules and laws that could be
>>> scrapped or modified without doing too much harm? Didn't his victories
>>> include the legendary vacuum cleaner now being allowed to consume
>>> megawatts, and something about some distance or other in one of the
>>> Thames tunnels now being able to be indicated in yards instead of
>>> metres? [So far, has anything of substance been changed?]

>> Yep, the UK gets to decide which EUians it allows to move to the UK

> So we no longer allow them,

That's not correct, those that the UK decides are
needed are still allowed but the dregs from places
like Romania that the UK decides it doesnt need arent.

> instead we take workers from further East

Not the dregs

> who will work for less, providedwe let them bring their families...

The UK chooses to not allow those.

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 10:00:15 +1100, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk>
wrote:

> On 14 Mar 2024 at 22:56:17 GMT, "SteveW" <steve@walker-family.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
>> On 14/03/2024 22:44, David Wade wrote:
>
>>> So we no longer allow them, instead we take workers from further East
>>> who will work for less, provided we let them bring their families...
>>
>> The point is that we can now control the numbers if we want to - we
>> couldn't do much to limit EU numbers before. UK governments can at least
>> now be held responsible for the numbers and voted out for not
>> controlling them to a reasonable level.
>
> There is some hope that th epoliticos are taking note of the fact that
> the
> population of this country has gone from about 50 million when I was a
> kid
> (1950s) to 70 million now. That's almost 300k net a year. ]

And it was much higher than that just before Brexit

> Small wonder there's a housing shortage.

And lots of Romanian criminals.

blacky <bhju88@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:32:10 +1100, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk>
> wrote:
>
> > On 14 Mar 2024 at 10:34:23 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > On 13/03/2024 16:45, Spike wrote:
> > > > Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > This just in for the gammons from a gammon-approved source:
> > > > > https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-civil-service
> >>>>
> > > > > "The Brexit and the State report [...] describes the Brexit
> > > > > project as "very much a work in progress", despite the UK having
> > > > > voted to leave the EU nearly a decade ago. "
> >>>>
> > > > > Good luck with the "work in progress"! By 2356, we'll finally
> > > > > start cashing in the dividend.
> >>>
> > > > We gave the EEC/EC/EU every chance, we were financing small and
> > > > inefficient French farms for 47 years.
> >>
> > > Britain had plenty of farmers in that category for decades too. Most
> > > of them have been replaced by 'hobby farmers' (do they still qualify
> > > for area payments?) who have sold their grotty 2 bed flat in London
> > > and become farmers (or moved to France and bought a Chateaux).
> >>
> > > Scotland still has small farmers, 'crofters'.
> >>
> > > No benefit cap on farmers.
> >>
> > > In 1970 a typical tractor was a David Brown 990 selectamatic, or
> > > similar costing just over £1000.
>
> > Are they still in the tractor business?
>
> Nope
>
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brown_Ltd.#Sale_of_David_Brown_Tractors_to_Case_1972
>
> > > Now farmers seem to 'need' to own massive 4wd John Deere tractors,
> > > where the cab costs many times more than a complete tractor did in
> > > 1970.
> >
> > Don't these have satnav-guidance so if they're towing a plough the
> > tractor will plough exactly the required area including leaving the
> > correct edge strip?
>
> Satnav isnt that accurate

It is, but not the cheapo consumer stuff.
>
> > And, en plus, is a 1970's style tractor going to be able to tow the
> > effing great trailer into which the combine has just regurgitated 10
> > tons of grain?
> >
> > And. en plus (2), isn't all this kit often shared between many farmers
> > or rented out as needed? The combine we see round here certainly is.
> >
> > And they're not hobby farmers around here, I can assure you.
>
>
>

--
braind

On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:39:53 +1100, me9 <me9@privacy.net> wrote:

> blacky <bhju88@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 02:32:10 +1100, Tim Streater <tim@streater.me.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > On 14 Mar 2024 at 10:34:23 GMT, "Andrew" <Andrew97d@btinternet.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > On 13/03/2024 16:45, Spike wrote:
>> > > > Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > > > > This just in for the gammons from a gammon-approved source:
>> > > > > https://www.gbnews.com/politics/brexit-news-civil-service
>> >>>>
>> > > > > "The Brexit and the State report [...] describes the Brexit
>> > > > > project as "very much a work in progress", despite the UK having
>> > > > > voted to leave the EU nearly a decade ago. "
>> >>>>
>> > > > > Good luck with the "work in progress"! By 2356, we'll finally
>> > > > > start cashing in the dividend.
>> >>>
>> > > > We gave the EEC/EC/EU every chance, we were financing small and
>> > > > inefficient French farms for 47 years.
>> >>
>> > > Britain had plenty of farmers in that category for decades too. Most
>> > > of them have been replaced by 'hobby farmers' (do they still qualify
>> > > for area payments?) who have sold their grotty 2 bed flat in London
>> > > and become farmers (or moved to France and bought a Chateaux).
>> >>
>> > > Scotland still has small farmers, 'crofters'.
>> >>
>> > > No benefit cap on farmers.
>> >>
>> > > In 1970 a typical tractor was a David Brown 990 selectamatic, or
>> > > similar costing just over £1000.
>>
>> > Are they still in the tractor business?
>>
>> Nope
>>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Brown_Ltd.#Sale_of_David_Brown_Tractors_to_Case_1972
>>
>> > > Now farmers seem to 'need' to own massive 4wd John Deere tractors,
>> > > where the cab costs many times more than a complete tractor did in
>> > > 1970.
>> >
>> > Don't these have satnav-guidance so if they're towing a plough the
>> > tractor will plough exactly the required area including leaving the
>> > correct edge strip?
>>
>> Satnav isnt that accurate

> It is, but not the cheapo consumer stuff.

Nope, not even with DGPS

>> > And, en plus, is a 1970's style tractor going to be able to tow the
>> > effing great trailer into which the combine has just regurgitated 10
>> > tons of grain?
>> >
>> > And. en plus (2), isn't all this kit often shared between many farmers
>> > or rented out as needed? The combine we see round here certainly is..
>> >
>> > And they're not hobby farmers around here, I can assure you.
>>
>>
>>
>

On 15/03/2024 03:17, blacky wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Mar 2024 13:39:53 +1100, me9 <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> blacky <bhju88@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>
>>> Satnav isnt that accurate
>
>> It is, but not the cheapo consumer stuff.
>
> Nope, not even with DGPS

Combine it with other techniques to get cm accuracy

Galileo’s HAS, better than 20cm
https://tinyurl.com/23d6tp3c

https://www.u-blox.com/en/technologies/high-precision-positioning

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk