If we vote for Brexit what happens

Tromking

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Not exclusively in training at all, and I never said someone working at an airport is a public servant, just merely highlighting that both are in public-facing roles and probably like Wotsthat, face a load of abuse that neither really need.

All very interesting, but lest we forget that my point originally was and still is about your own situation.

kabayiri

always_sunny wrote: »

...
Just the way you refer to Indians, Pakistanis and Jamaicans in your post is a validation of that, 'bring them' sure, that's what you used to do. This is despite the fact that many Commonwealth countries are now independent and no longer see themselves as ruled by England.
...

In a global world, you can buy your bluray player from anywhere which sells it, so why can't you do the same with labour?

You seem to think this is due to some Commonwealth notion.

Newsflash. It's not.

Qatar doesn't have an empire. Nor does Saudi Arabia. Both import large numbers of migrant workers.

Stop looking to the past and look to the future.

always_sunny

setmefree2 wrote: »

Rubbish.

In 1973 (when we joined the common market) we were the 5th largest economy in the world.

In 1993 when Major signed Maastricht


http://en.classora.com/reports/t24369/ranking-of-the-worlds-richest-countries-by-gdp?edition=1973

Fair enough, must have been all rumours then; fake news from the then Soviet Union.
Maybe the UK felt very charitable in the 70's wanting to rub shoulders with other EU members.

With the current exchange rate should we say it's now #6 or is that also not true?
Let's say it's #2, with #1 folks may get suspicious!

kabayiri

always_sunny wrote: »

...
I understand you are also very keen in automation; must be some sort of utopia you have with manufacturing in the UK by machines and indigenous simply lay on their back reaping the rewards!

I've worked in automation and understand it more than most.

Automation makes money primarily for the investors and the business owners, and the small number of engineers who implement.

It's not a charity. It's not a job creation scheme.

I doubt you were put off buying a laptop just because much of the assembly was done by machinery.

Automation can bring higher value by improving quality.

Private_Church

CKhalvashi wrote: »

Same goes for other standards such as electrical, building regulations etc. It may cost the consumer more, but safety in these areas are paramount, and I can't see the UK deviating from these after the withdrawal of the UK from the EU, whether domestically or export.

British law often goes further than EU law prescribes, whilst being based on these regulations. You have to consider that, too.

Have a read of the new EU regulations regarding deactivated firearms and what they mean to the UK public who own deactivated firearms.

The UK does not have problems with deactivated guns being reactivated but due to freedom of movement thousands of deactivated weapons from Eastern Europe (where the deactivation standards are quiet pathetic) have been turning up reactivated in Western Europe and used in gun crime.

Now we have the new EU regulations whereby all new deactivated weapons are basically butchered so they can't even dry fire or c ock the guns. We also have the situation where anyone who owns a deactivated gun can't actually sell it until its sent back to the London/Birmingham proof House, butchered and then a new certificate is issued with all the extra costs involved paid for by Joe Public. Section 1 fiearms which are to be deatcivated now have to go back to the proof office twice so the cost is double.

My point is rather than just copying the UK deactivation system which has been very successful for decades the EU decides on its own criteria for the sake of it purely so they can claim its the EU system rather than taking on board the UK one.

To many is small beer but there are hundreds of thousands of these weapons in the UK and its just another instance of the EU meddling in peoples lives.


I would also point out the EN standards in the Construction industry still cause confusion and in many instances are of a lower standard than the old British Standards.

always_sunny

Private_Church wrote: »

Have a read of the new EU regulations regarding deactivated firearms and what they mean to the UK public who own deactivated firearms.

The UK does not have problems with deactivated guns being reactivated but due to freedom of movement thousands of deactivated weapons from Eastern Europe (where the deactivation standards are quiet pathetic) have been turning up reactivated in Western Europe and used in gun crime.

Now we have the new EU regulations whereby all new deactivated weapons are basically butchered so they can't even dry fire or c ock the guns. We also have the situation where anyone who owns a deactivated gun can't actually sell it until its sent back to the London/Birmingham proof House, butchered and then a new certificate is issued with all the extra costs involved paid for by Joe Public. Section 1 fiearms which are to be deatcivated now have to go back to the proof office twice so the cost is double.

My point is rather than just copying the UK deactivation system which has been very successful for decades the EU decides on its own criteria for the sake of it purely so they can claim its the EU system rather than taking on board the UK one.

To many is small beer but there are hundreds of thousands of these weapons in the UK and its just another instance of the EU meddling in peoples lives.


I would also point out the EN standards in the Construction industry still cause confusion and in many instances are of a lower standard than the old British Standards.

And yet "MEP Vicky Ford is confident Parliament's redrafted firearms directive will protect law-abiding hunters and museums while preventing terrorists access to guns." Vicky comes from the UK.

Is this something like that lady complaining about straight bananas and the EU meddling in people's lives? Even if the very same existing legislation was replicated across the EU, some folks here would still complain about it.

always_sunny

kabayiri wrote: »

Automation makes money primarily for the investors and the business owners, and the small number of engineers who implement.

It's not a charity. It's not a job creation scheme.

So what about the rest? You know, the plebs out there who want low skilled jobs?
What about the non investors or business owners? Collaterals. Got it.

CKhalvashi

Private_Church wrote: »

Have a read of the new EU regulations regarding deactivated firearms and what they mean to the UK public who own deactivated firearms.

The UK does not have problems with deactivated guns being reactivated but due to freedom of movement thousands of deactivated weapons from Eastern Europe (where the deactivation standards are quiet pathetic) have been turning up reactivated in Western Europe and used in gun crime.

Now we have the new EU regulations whereby all new deactivated weapons are basically butchered so they can't even dry fire or c ock the guns. We also have the situation where anyone who owns a deactivated gun can't actually sell it until its sent back to the London/Birmingham proof House, butchered and then a new certificate is issued with all the extra costs involved paid for by Joe Public. Section 1 fiearms which are to be deatcivated now have to go back to the proof office twice so the cost is double.

My point is rather than just copying the UK deactivation system which has been very successful for decades the EU decides on its own criteria for the sake of it purely so they can claim its the EU system rather than taking on board the UK one.

To many is small beer but there are hundreds of thousands of these weapons in the UK and its just another instance of the EU meddling in peoples lives.

How many people in the UK reasonably own firearms? I don't, I think I can say with certainty that 99% of those I know don't, and probably those that might wouldn't have acquired them legally and would take no notice of any standards.

These are also predominantly people who cannot access the UK without a visa, so I see no cause for you to raise the alarm on that either.

Pair this with what I say below.

always_sunny wrote: »

And yet "MEP Vicky Ford is confident Parliament's redrafted firearms directive will protect law-abiding hunters and museums while preventing terrorists access to guns." Vicky comes from the UK.

Is this something like that lady complaining about straight bananas and the EU meddling in people's lives? Even if the very same existing legislation was replicated across the EU, some folks here would still complain about it.

Vicky Ford is one of my MEPs, and I agree that for the genuine collector, this won't be an issue. Again, I don't know anyone that is a gun collector, and this would be a tiny minority of the population.

I also believe that safety is the main priority here, and that overrules any potential cost. I'd rather not be shot (and I appreciate there are several just on this thread that would like to see that happen) as a result of a weapon being released into the UK that can potentially be reactivated. Put yourself in that position, and you'll see that my views make a lot of sense.

Private_Church

Thanks for the reply .

Its a separate part of the proposed legislation. "here was a particular issue on what we call acoustic weapons, which were these live firearms supposedly converted to only be able to fire blanks, but then re-converted and used in those Charlie Hebdo attacks".

Here in the UK a deactivated weapon has to be tested by the Birmingham/London proof house. The gun has the firing pin ground away at 45 degrees ,barrel blocked and a hole drilled in the top of the receiver so it can never be reactivated or even fire a blank cartridge.

We can buy specific blank firing guns that look similar to genuine frearms but the materials used are not up to the standards of centrefire/rimfire ammunition so if someone did attempt to fire live rounds the guns woul literally blow apart. The proposed EU legislation is a sledgehammer to crack a walnut because all existing deactivated guns will not comply and as such will need extra work carried out to them and then sent back to the proof houses to be checked and certificated so another cost to the public.

On the continent ,especially in Eastern Europe the deactivation can be as little as blocking the barrel up with a molten lead which obviously is easy to sort out. The problem lies over there not in the UK.

The UK gun laws are very very strange and make no sense so Its not just the EU that seems to have a lack of common sense . We can't own any semi automatic pistols but can legally own a snipers rifle that can kill from over 1km away. We can own an M-16 assault rifle as long as its not fully or semi automatic so it can have a 25 round magazine but must be re-cocked for every shot.We can't own a .22 semi automatic pistol but we can own a .22 semi automatic rifle that will fire as quickly as you can pull the trigger.

Again we have a situation whereby law abiding citizens are being penalised for the crimes of the few who's number you could count on one hand (Michael Ryan, Derrick Bird and Thomas Hamilton). 3 incidents in 30 years but drink/drugged drivers kill people on a daily basis.

Plenty of people get drunk or take drugs ,get in their car and kill innocent people on the streets of the UK every month but we don't ban cars. Criminals kill people with illegal guns throughout the country every year and they don't care about the law but we have one man who does own handguns legally and he guns down children in a school and the Government bans handguns for everyone. Makes no sense whatsoever.


There is no logic to the EU or UK gun laws but excuse me for digressing somewhat.

Private_Church

CKhalvashi wrote: »

How many people in the UK reasonably own firearms? I don't, I think I can say with certainty that 99% of those I know don't, and probably those that might wouldn't have acquired them legally and would take no notice of any standards.

Section 1 Firearms certificate holders and shotgun certificate holders number around 250,000

These are also predominantly people who cannot access the UK without a visa, so I see no cause for you to raise the alarm on that either.

Pair this with what I say below.

My point is freedom of movement of good and services has exacerbated the problems. Hoards of Skorpion machine guns,AK-47's seized in Kent on a boat that came from France. The guns came from Eastern Europe, driven in a van al the way to France and then into the UK. Police in London seizing roughly 400 illegal firearms a month.....Its not so much about EU criminals getting to the UK but the number of illegally held firearms getting to the UK criminals.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/04/21/gun-running-gang-convicted-after-largest-seizure-of-automatic-we/

Vicky Ford is one of my MEPs, and I agree that for the genuine collector, this won't be an issue. Again, I don't know anyone that is a gun collector, and this would be a tiny minority of the population.

I wouldn't say 250,000 and growing is a tiny number. I may not matter to you and unless you have an interest in guns,shooting,history etc then why would it but the bigger picture is we who do have an interest are being punished due to poor legislation,. Vicky Ford is dealing with "acoustic weapons" I'm dealing with current UK spec deactivated firearms which is a separate section of the legislation.

I also believe that safety is the main priority here, and that overrules any potential cost.

Ban cars from the streets of the UK. More people killed with cars than guns, even illegally held ones.

I'd rather not be shot (and I appreciate there are several just on this thread that would like to see that happen) as a result of a weapon being released into the UK that can potentially be reactivated.

You are confusing 2 separate classes of deactivated weapons. UK spec deacts are safe, can nver ever be re activated. Currently all active firears, or deactivated firearms bought into the UK must be deactivated to UK spec (far higher than the current EU spec) then they are sent to the Proof Houses where they are checked and given a certificate. They cannot be legally owned,sold or bought without one. In the EU in countries such as Slovakia all they do is hammer a pin in the gun and they class that as being deactivated. We in the UK do not get deactivated guns that can be reactivated............Its a very important point that you seem to be missing. So the EU are implementing legislation that we will need to comply with when our own UK legislation is fine.

One of the mass murderers I mentioned previously used a .22 LR (very small calibre) to kill his victims but we can legally own them along with bigger calibres such as .243,.308,.50 cal. So if safety is the main priority how is it we can still own big calibre guns?.

When we see a Nice style attack in the UK (which we probably will ) where a terrorist drives his truck into innocent civilians and kills 86 people will you be calling for lorries to be banned?. Its no different that gun crime, not the gun that kills people its the person holding it.

BTW I wouldn't want to see anyone shot apart from Tony Blair so you safe with me..:D

Put yourself in that position, and you'll see that my views make a lot of sense.

Tried to but no sorry your views don't make a lot of sense. Its not a dig, I just don't think you understand the laws around gun ownership or deactivated guns.

Just to sum up. The current UK legislation workss perfectly well and means that certificated Deactivated firearms can't be reactivated whereas current EU ones can. So the EU brings in laws that mean our existing deactivated guns no longer comply with EU law so we have to spend roughly £100-150 per gun to get them re machined and re certificated. It also means they will no longer dry fire, re-!!!! or break down to clean or in the case of the thousands of re-enactors in the UK won't be able to show the public how the guns cycle/work.

Anyway I'll shut up know as I don't want to take up the thread about a single issue..:)