(June 26, 2016 at 2:57 pm)Emjay Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 2:26 pm)abaris Wrote: It's rather Great Britain for us. Or, if we're lazy, it's only England, although that doesn't cover all of it - as of yet. Hardly anyone uses the equivalent of UK, apart from a few news anchors and journalists to have another word at their disposal. For variety.

It was Great Britain... now it's:

Vicky Pollard aptly summarizes the current situation: Yeah but no but yeah but no but yeah but I totally didn't vote leave the others did and then, OMG.

(June 26, 2016 at 2:11 pm)Tiberius Wrote: I always thought it was weird that the UK is referred to as just the "UK". I mean, that's basically a description of the type of union and government, it says absolutely nothing about the country itself.

If they were another "United Kingdom" in the world, it would be pretty ambiguous.

Actually what I find weird is when people refer the the UK as "Britain" or "Great Britain" as our own Prime Minister did earlier this week. Great Britain is just an island the UK is a country. But than again, most Aussies wouldn't even know that the full title of the country is "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland" or that the Union Jack (/Union Flag) is an amalgamation of the English, Scottish, and Irish flags (sorry Wales). And by Irish I obviously mean Saint Patrick's Saltire, not the flag of Ireland.

So, if Scotland and Wales pull out of the UK will it then just be known as The Kingdom?

If Scotland pulls out, and Northern Ireland I'd like it to be known as "The Ununited Kingdom of Great Britain". Or "The United Kingdom of Central and Southern Great Britain". Although TBH the poopyheads will probably decide to name their country "The United Kingdom of England and Wales" LOL.

(June 26, 2016 at 7:57 am)madog Wrote: The example I chose to make a point on was about a much bigger issue, which was ridiculed prior to any evidence being considered .... so no I won't further discuss the issue and certainly not  with those who have showed they have formed their opinions and don't give a shit for evidence if it challenges their beliefs, other than to point out what should have been obvious to any one with any understanding of law ....

Law isn't just how you interpret the articles, but how the important terms are defined ....

There is no independently legal definition for "Commercial Communication" or "Information Society services" except for some specific legislation for example a European Directive 2000/31/EC .... But an important note the acts/dirctives define those terms and in particular only for the purposes of those acts or Directives where they have been used.

Commercial Communication is a broad term when undefined, discussing any product in a any medium when it was Commercially available is "Commercial Communication" when taken to its broadest interpretation ... because of this these and other similar broad terms are defined so the Courts are limited to the intentions of the Act or Directive....

Note The European Commission failed to define "Commercial Communication" or "Information Society services" this issue is presently before the European Parliament ...

Kind of a lot of text out of somebody who doesn't want to talk about it any more.


If your issue is that the EU doesn't really have to follow its own laws (or the EC-whatever), that I can understand. If the EU is writing laws that destroy free speech, that's definitely a problem. What I see happening here, on the other hand, is that they're trying to limit the promotion of a nicotine delivery product. That is a pretty normal thing for modern countries to do, and I'm not aware of any examples where such laws lead directly to further free speech limitations.


You also mentioned that the issue of wording is before parliament, which tells me that concerned parties are in the process of deciding how to rectify that situation.

(June 27, 2016 at 1:45 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(June 26, 2016 at 7:57 am)madog Wrote:  

Kind of a lot of text out of somebody who doesn't want to talk about it any more.


If your issue is that the EU doesn't really have to follow its own laws (or the EC-whatever), that I can understand. If the EU is writing laws that destroy free speech, that's definitely a problem. What I see happening here, on the other hand, is that they're trying to limit the promotion of a nicotine delivery product. That is a pretty normal thing for modern countries to do, and I'm not aware of any examples where such laws lead directly to further free speech limitations.


You also mentioned that the issue of wording is before parliament, which tells me that concerned parties are in the process of deciding how to rectify that situation.

LoL ... your first statement is right on the mark. I stand admonished ...

Your second point I understand if we are talking about equal detriment ... but a to attack a product that is 95% safer than the apparent bogey man that funds a considerable proportion of EU funding does raise an eye brow.

On your third point we are in total agreement

I don't likes being in the disUK

(June 27, 2016 at 2:32 am)madog Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 1:45 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote: Kind of a lot of text out of somebody who doesn't want to talk about it any more.


If your issue is that the EU doesn't really have to follow its own laws (or the EC-whatever), that I can understand. If the EU is writing laws that destroy free speech, that's definitely a problem. What I see happening here, on the other hand, is that they're trying to limit the promotion of a nicotine delivery product. That is a pretty normal thing for modern countries to do, and I'm not aware of any examples where such laws lead directly to further free speech limitations.


You also mentioned that the issue of wording is before parliament, which tells me that concerned parties are in the process of deciding how to rectify that situation.

LoL ... your first statement is right on the mark. I stand admonished ...

Your second point I understand if we are talking about equal detriment ... but a to attack a product that is 95% safer than the apparent bogey man that funds a considerable proportion of EU funding does raise an eye brow.

On your third point we are in total agreement

Is the EU funded by cigarettes?

(June 27, 2016 at 3:09 am)Redbeard The Pink Wrote:

(June 27, 2016 at 2:32 am)madog Wrote:  

Is the EU funded by cigarettes?

That is actually a very good question  ... 

The UK and most EU nations rely on tobacco tax to survive ...

 A grass root invention that actually stops people from buying tobacco, that has stopped at least over 3 million smokers from buying tobacco in the UK alone is attacked by those that are interested in cash from taxes rather than health, is that moral ?

Do you you want to live a cushy life from the taxes from smokers?

(June 24, 2016 at 3:21 pm)Rhythm Wrote:

(June 24, 2016 at 3:18 pm)KevinM1 Wrote: So, when do we see Scotland and perhaps Northern Ireland leaving the UK?  Within the year?  24 months?

It would behoove them to do so before negotiations with GB are completed, if the aim or impetus is to remain in the EU in addition to declaring independence.

NI has an infallible method to join the EU at any time, a 50%+1 vote for reunification with the rest of the island. It's not going to happen overnight, but in 10 to 15 years the pragmatic and educated younger unionists may be more receptive to the idea. And with 45% of the vote guaranteed already, it won't take too many unionists to see te effect of no EU money to win the referndum.