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.

--
Ottavio Caruso

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.

“Britain as a result of emergency wartime measures had one of the most
efficient farming industries in the world, and while agriculture accounted
for 25% of the French economy, it only accounted for 4% in UK. In the 1950s
Britain's cheap food policy was predicated on trading at world market
prices, which were throughout this period substantially lower than the CAP
ones. It was supplemented for its farmers from the 1950s by a system of
deficiency payments.

The system of price support developed through the 1970s and 1980s: the CAP
absorbed more and more Community resources, from an estimated 12.9 per cent
of the budget in 1966 to 68.4 or even 80 per cent in 1985. Between 1974 and
1983, guarantee expenditure on agricultural products grew from three
billion ECUs to 16 billion ECUs. These trends emerged precisely as the
importance of agriculture and rural populations in the member-states
proportionately declined. Distribution of the benefits was also highly
skewed; the Commission estimates that in 1991 some 80 per cent of support
went to 20 per cent of the EU's farmers.”

--
Spike

In message <usshf5$10vku$1@dont-email.me>, Ottavio Caruso
<ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> writes
>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.
>
Well, "It all makes work for the working man to do."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v1dvAxA9ib0
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

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"?

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"?

I would have thought that as it took half a century for the EU’s failures
to become obvious, it didn’t need stating that a similar span of time would
be reasonable for the results of Brexit to become apparent.

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.

--
Spike

On 13/03/2024 17:19, HVS 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"?

They didn't, but they did suggest 5 and more likely 10 years before the
benefits started to be felt. However, with, COVID and then the effect of
Ukraine, Gaza and other problems on world markets, it may not be fair to
have started the 10 year count yet.

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.

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.

--
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 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.

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.

>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.

.... and end up with another bunch of useless cunts every bit as
incompetent.

In message <usssld$13cfh$1@dont-email.me>, SteveW
<steve@walker-family.me.uk> writes
>On 13/03/2024 17:19, HVS 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"?
>
>They didn't, but they did suggest 5 and more likely 10 years before the
>benefits started to be felt. However, with, COVID and then the effect
>of Ukraine, Gaza and other problems on world markets, it may not be
>fair to have started the 10 year count yet.
>
If, every couple of years, we continue to have events like the above,
the start of the countdown could be delayed indefinitely.
--
Ian
Aims and ambitions are neither attainments nor achievements

On 13/03/2024 22:52, Ian Jackson wrote:
> In message <usssld$13cfh$1@dont-email.me>, SteveW
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> writes
>> On 13/03/2024 17:19, HVS 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"?
>>
>> They didn't, but they did suggest 5 and more likely 10 years before
>> the benefits started to be felt. However, with, COVID and then the
>> effect of Ukraine, Gaza and other problems on world markets, it may
>> not be fair to have started the 10 year count yet.
>>
> If, every couple of years, we continue to have events like the above,
> the start of the countdown could be delayed indefinitely.

Well it's hardly fair to judge the results after such a tumultuous
period that has damaged economies all over the world, just at the point
that things were due to change here.

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.

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

Something like that....

Dave

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:52:38 +1100, Ian Jackson
<ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <usssld$13cfh$1@dont-email.me>, SteveW
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> writes
>> On 13/03/2024 17:19, HVS 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"?
>>
>> They didn't, but they did suggest 5 and more likely 10 years before the
>> benefits started to be felt. However, with, COVID and then the effect
>> of Ukraine, Gaza and other problems on world markets, it may not be
>> fair to have started the 10 year count yet.

> 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.

> the start of the countdown could be delayed indefinitely.

Pigs might fly too

On Wed, 13 Mar 2024 22:52:38 +0000
Ian Jackson <ianREMOVETHISjackson@g3ohx.co.uk> wrote:

> In message <usssld$13cfh$1@dont-email.me>, SteveW
> <steve@walker-family.me.uk> writes
> >On 13/03/2024 17:19, HVS 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"?
> >
> >They didn't, but they did suggest 5 and more likely 10 years before
> >the benefits started to be felt. However, with, COVID and then the
> >effect of Ukraine, Gaza and other problems on world markets, it may
> >not be fair to have started the 10 year count yet.
> >
> If, every couple of years, we continue to have events like the above,
> the start of the countdown could be delayed indefinitely.

"Dad, is it shit yet?"

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:36:46 +1100, cantankerous trolling geezer Rodent
Speed, the auto-contradicting senile sociopath, blabbered, again:

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

--
FredXX to Rodent Speed:
"You are still an idiot and an embarrassment to your country. No wonder
we shipped the likes of you out of the British Isles. Perhaps stupidity
and criminality is inherited after all?"
Message-ID: <plbf76$gfl$1@dont-email.me>

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.

--
Joe

On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 12:36:46 +1100
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, 14 Mar 2024 09:52:38 +1100, 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 the WHO and
Bill Gates are already talking up the next pandemic. There is a
treaty in progress that will hand over control of public health
measures to the WHO if the *WHO* declares a pandemic.

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

--
Joe

On 13 Mar 2024 at 22:20:21 GMT, "Cursitor Doom" <cd@notformail.com> 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:

>>> 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.

EU Directives needed to be codified into UK law before they took effect. On
the other hand, Regulations, according to the treaties, took effect in all
member states the moment they were passed by Brussels. Therefore, the moment
we left, all the Regulations would immediately cease to apply, as they were
not implemented by any UK law. What the UK did, therefore, was what any colony
does when it gains independence: it passes what's known as a Reception Statute
(look it up in Winky). This is a law whose purpose is to give legal effect to
all the uncodified regulations of the occupying power (in our case, the EU),
so that on the day independence was achieved, nothing would change and so
chaos would be avoided. It's what India did in 1947, and in fact what various
US states did in 1776 (or later). This article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reception_statute

describes the process.

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.

--
"That excessive bail ought not to be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted" -- Bill of Rights 1689

On 13 Mar 2024 at 17:54:05 GMT, Spike wrote:

> 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"?
>
> I would have thought that as it took half a century for the EU’s failures
> to become obvious, it didn’t need stating that a similar span of time would
> be reasonable for the results of Brexit to become apparent.
>
> 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.
--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

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.
>
>
>>> 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 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....
>
> Dave

--
Cheers, Rob, Sheffield UK

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.

--
Ottavio Caruso

RJH <patchmoney@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 13 Mar 2024 at 17:54:05 GMT, Spike wrote:
>
>> 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"?
>>
>> I would have thought that as it took half a century for the EU’s failures
>> to become obvious, it didn’t need stating that a similar span of time would
>> be reasonable for the results of Brexit to become apparent.
>>
>> 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.

--
Spike

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. 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.

Those CAP payments keep a massive agricultural machinery
manufacturing sector going.

Andrew

On 13/03/2024 19:01, Tim Streater 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.
>
> 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.
>

Why can't I buy proper creosote and decent solvent-based paints,
stains and glues ?

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.