Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 whembly wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:
Been meaning to post in this thread for ages- I am personally very concerned with this and totally unhappy with the various EU bodies involved. This is exactly the sort of crap that justifies Euroscepticism.

My main worry is that we'll have to lower our regulatory standards to the level of the US, resulting in poorer quality food and so on, because the US is much more tolerant of that sort of thing than the EU. The US also tolerates much more inhumane conditions on farms and so on.

This is quite obviously an example of the EU's machinery being "captured" by specific powerful interests, and we should let our representatives know that we will friggin' stomp them in the next election if this goes through. Clever of them to push for it after the Euro elections though.

O.o

But, but... 'Murrica is da bestest ever!

taint so bad here...

I'm sure the US is a grand place to live, but I wouldn't choose to live there myself. I want the EU regulations to stay intact, not to be taken apart, US style regulation is great for the US, where people want it, but I do not want it here, I haven't voted for it, and I do not appreciate it being forced through to serve commercial interests.

Shadow Captain: I'm actually very pro-EU and think long term a federal superstate is the way to go. Problems like this come from the current "half way there" solution that we have, which pleases no one.
With that in mind, I hope the UK does leave Europe because I am sick of them obstructing things I agree with or pushing things I don't agree with. And no matter what the EU does, even if it was pushed for by british interests, the British public and press seem to whine about it. Frankly tiresome, and I reckon if ye want out ye should leave.

This is what worries me about Scotland choosing to remain part of the UK.

Can we be an EU member state even if the rUK leaves? Quickly! To the legal loophole mobile!

EU and Canada set out trade agreement
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-29375747

The European Commission and Canada have unveiled the details of a new trade liberalisation agreement.

Under the deal almost all customs tariffs will be eliminated and markets for services will be opened up.

But the agreement still needs approval from the EU parliament and faces particular opposition from Germany.

Critics say the deal restricts the power of democratic governments in relation to big business.
Business benefits

It's not just maple syrup. Traded products, in both directions, range from machinery, chemicals and transport equipment to services such as insurance and communications.

The European Commission has said the deal would boost bilateral trade by 23%. And a A joint EU-Canadian study has put the combined annual economic gains at about 20bn euros although those figures were published six years ago.

However a provision included in the deal to bolster the rights of foreign investors, known as Investor State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) could still prevent the deal being approved.

Campaigners say it gives big business too much power in relation to democratically elected governments wishing to introduce new policies.

Analysis: economics correspondent, Andrew Walker
One thing could still derail the deal.

The Germans don't like the proposal that's included for a new system of tribunals, under what's knows as ISDS. If foreign investors feel they've been mistreated they can turn to these tribunals and even in some cases apply for compensation.

ISDS has actually been around for years. But recently campaigners have begun to argue that it is undemocratic because of the constraints it puts on elected governments.

For example the tobacco company Philip Morris is taking legal action against Australia over its plain packaging laws - there has been no ruling yet on this case.

Other cases have involved regulation of energy prices, disputes over patents and alleged wrongful criminal prosecution.

The German economy minister Sigmar Gabriel has said he would reject the Canada deal if the ISDS elements remain.

That has cast new doubt on whether the deal will ever come into force and it suggests an uphill struggle for other trade negotiations still being hammered out behind the scenes.
Campaigners have called the ISDS "a powerful corporate weapon to delay, weaken and kill regulation."

Nick Dearden, director for the World Development Movement says of the EU Canada deal: "If it is agreed, it will undermine the power of democratically elected governments to make decisions in the public interest".

CETA is the best thing happening in the last few years. Yes, I am extremely biased because my company, and therefore my family, vastly profit by it. It's an important step in the right direction to shift economical decision power away from individual states and back to where it belongs: companies. The more power companies hold, the better. They will always look for the best in terms of profit and guarantee a stable and strong economy. States / individual governments do not know anything about how economy works.

The biggest problem is that a government has to satisfy its potential voters and most voters have absolutely no idea of economics. At all.

CETA is awesome. Our entire little family and our friends have been dancing, throwing flowers around in joy. And - this isn't about Canada. Got a problem with someone in the US / EU? Sue them remotely via a Canadian subsidary.

...and Sigmar Gabriel is a stupid leftist anyway with noone caring about what he says.

 Sigvatr wrote:
CETA is the best thing happening in the last few years. Yes, I am extremely biased because my company, and therefore my family, vastly profit by it. It's an important step in the right direction to shift economical decision power away from individual states and back to where it belongs: companies. The more power companies hold, the better. They will always look for the best in terms of profit and guarantee a stable and strong economy. States / individual governments do not know anything about how economy works.

The biggest problem is that a government has to satisfy its potential voters and most voters have absolutely no idea of economics. At all.

CETA is awesome. Our entire little family and our friends have been dancing, throwing flowers around in joy. And - this isn't about Canada. Got a problem with someone in the US / EU? Sue them remotely via a Canadian subsidiary.

...and Sigmar Gabriel is a stupid leftist anyway with noone caring about what he says.

Yeah... sorry, I don't want companies to have the power to over rule regulations. And certainly don't want them to have more power then elected governments. I like that you actually admit that it directly benefits you, but do you know how many people will get shafted for "you".

This treaty can go to hell.
Private companies are beholden only to making money and they often trample over everyone else to get it. I don't want a government being sued simply because it isn't willing to throw its populace under the bus for someone else's profit.

 Sigvatr wrote:
The more power companies hold, the better.

There are no words......wow, just wow

 Baragash wrote:

 Sigvatr wrote:
The more power companies hold, the better.

There are no words......wow, just wow

There's so much I disagree with I'm not sure I know where to start...

My sarcasm sense tingled from that post TBH.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
My sarcasm sense tingled from that post TBH.

Poe's Law is always in effect.

The philosoraptor returns (with a vengeance )

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
My sarcasm sense tingled from that post TBH.

Nope, fully honest.

With CETA being there to stay, TTIP is just at your doorstep.

I use Poe's law when someone says something I find insane enough that I cannot tell if they are joking. So yeah basically I am since I obviously disagree with him. However, since extremism is subjective everyone else does as well.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Sigvatr wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
My sarcasm sense tingled from that post TBH.

Nope, fully honest.

With CETA being there to stay, TTIP is just at your doorstep.

You are crowing about getting more money when there are millions in the EU about to suffer for this. How many healthcare systems are going to suffer because private hospital groups in the US decide they can't compete with a healthcare system that doesn't screw people? This isn't about individuals, this isn't about a single country, it's about the entire EU. Millions of people will suffer if this comes into effect. Companies should not be allowed the power to sue a government because it looks after its populace. Companies will not act purely in the interest of others because it's not in their interest to do so. There are isolated incidents of a company looking after its workers or others when it didn't have to but those are either decades ago or isolated incidents.

Wow, what an awful perspective. I think we can all find numerous examples of companies trampling over individual rights, the common good and everything in between in pursuit of a quick buck.

Sigvatr, I couldn't be more opposed to your viewpoints.

 Da Boss wrote:


Shadow Captain: I'm actually very pro-EU and think long term a federal superstate is the way to go. Problems like this come from the current "half way there" solution that we have, which pleases no one.
With that in mind, I hope the UK does leave Europe because I am sick of them obstructing things I agree with or pushing things I don't agree with. And no matter what the EU does, even if it was pushed for by british interests, the British public and press seem to whine about it. Frankly tiresome, and I reckon if ye want out ye should leave.

But we're not the only ones who complain? I'll be honest, breaking the EU into a simple, 'you're in the United States of Europe or not' solution doesn't really work. As mentioned by many others, there are many different cultural traditions and issues spread between the member states, and trying force them all to do exactly the same thing is counterproductive, and results in the lashback that has so many grumble about the EU. Trying to edge through the United States of Europe gradually by crafty legislation is just a mistake, because everyone can see it happening, and complains, and it risks the entire project.

What would make sense would be an EU wide referendum, where they give us the choice of us into two camps. 'Inner Europe', as the federalised US equivalent which has different local laws, but the same defence/foreign policies, etc, and 'outer Europe', where we adhere to a common set of trade principles/laws (and maybe a few other useful things like joint medical care when travelling within member states/sharing of police files), but otherwise retain full sovereignty.

That way, everyone gets what they want. No complaining, no moaning. One version of the EU as it was originally set up, one version of a new federalised state. Democratically chosen. Done and done.

 Ketara wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:


Shadow Captain: I'm actually very pro-EU and think long term a federal superstate is the way to go. Problems like this come from the current "half way there" solution that we have, which pleases no one.
With that in mind, I hope the UK does leave Europe because I am sick of them obstructing things I agree with or pushing things I don't agree with. And no matter what the EU does, even if it was pushed for by british interests, the British public and press seem to whine about it. Frankly tiresome, and I reckon if ye want out ye should leave.

But we're not the only ones who complain? I'll be honest, breaking the EU into a simple, 'you're in the United States of Europe or not' solution doesn't really work. As mentioned by many others, there are many different cultural traditions and issues spread between the member states, and trying force them all to do exactly the same thing is counterproductive, and results in the lashback that has so many grumble about the EU. Trying to edge through the United States of Europe gradually by crafty legislation is just a mistake, because everyone can see it happening, and complains, and it risks the entire project.

What would make sense would be an EU wide referendum, where they give us the choice of us into two camps. 'Inner Europe', as the federalised US equivalent which has different local laws, but the same defence/foreign policies, etc, and 'outer Europe', where we adhere to a common set of trade principles/laws (and maybe a few other useful things like joint medical care when travelling within member states/sharing of police files), but otherwise retain full sovereignty.

That way, everyone gets what they want. No complaining, no moaning. One version of the EU as it was originally set up, one version of a new federalised state. Democratically chosen. Done and done.

This. ^

I'd like to keep British Parliamentary democracy, as crap and unfit for purpose as it is.

Europe, you can keep your bureaucrats' paradise Superstate.

As for trade...doesn't Britain import more from Europe than we export to Europe? If we were to leave, it'd be in continental Europe's best interests to maintain a good trade relationship.

Seeing as how Agenda 21 isnt a really good thing, and how this is a real NWO kinda thing, yeah, makes my skin crawl.

We live in interesting times....

 Shadow Captain Edithae wrote:

 Ketara wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:


Shadow Captain: I'm actually very pro-EU and think long term a federal superstate is the way to go. Problems like this come from the current "half way there" solution that we have, which pleases no one.
With that in mind, I hope the UK does leave Europe because I am sick of them obstructing things I agree with or pushing things I don't agree with. And no matter what the EU does, even if it was pushed for by british interests, the British public and press seem to whine about it. Frankly tiresome, and I reckon if ye want out ye should leave.

But we're not the only ones who complain? I'll be honest, breaking the EU into a simple, 'you're in the United States of Europe or not' solution doesn't really work. As mentioned by many others, there are many different cultural traditions and issues spread between the member states, and trying force them all to do exactly the same thing is counterproductive, and results in the lashback that has so many grumble about the EU. Trying to edge through the United States of Europe gradually by crafty legislation is just a mistake, because everyone can see it happening, and complains, and it risks the entire project.

What would make sense would be an EU wide referendum, where they give us the choice of us into two camps. 'Inner Europe', as the federalised US equivalent which has different local laws, but the same defence/foreign policies, etc, and 'outer Europe', where we adhere to a common set of trade principles/laws (and maybe a few other useful things like joint medical care when travelling within member states/sharing of police files), but otherwise retain full sovereignty.

That way, everyone gets what they want. No complaining, no moaning. One version of the EU as it was originally set up, one version of a new federalised state. Democratically chosen. Done and done.

This. ^

I'd like to keep British Parliamentary democracy, as crap and unfit for purpose as it is.

Europe, you can keep your bureaucrats' paradise Superstate.

As for trade...doesn't Britain import more from Europe than we export to Europe? If we were to leave, it'd be in continental Europe's best interests to maintain a good trade relationship.

The UK isn't required to be a part of the EU to maintain good trade relations and even import / export tariff exemptions. So kindly write your parliamentary representatives and let them know that you want out of the EU, this way we can all move forward without you guys trying to push American interests on the rest of us.

 Ketara wrote:

 Da Boss wrote:


Shadow Captain: I'm actually very pro-EU and think long term a federal superstate is the way to go. Problems like this come from the current "half way there" solution that we have, which pleases no one.
With that in mind, I hope the UK does leave Europe because I am sick of them obstructing things I agree with or pushing things I don't agree with. And no matter what the EU does, even if it was pushed for by british interests, the British public and press seem to whine about it. Frankly tiresome, and I reckon if ye want out ye should leave.

But we're not the only ones who complain? I'll be honest, breaking the EU into a simple, 'you're in the United States of Europe or not' solution doesn't really work. As mentioned by many others, there are many different cultural traditions and issues spread between the member states, and trying force them all to do exactly the same thing is counterproductive, and results in the lashback that has so many grumble about the EU. Trying to edge through the United States of Europe gradually by crafty legislation is just a mistake, because everyone can see it happening, and complains, and it risks the entire project.

What would make sense would be an EU wide referendum, where they give us the choice of us into two camps. 'Inner Europe', as the federalised US equivalent which has different local laws, but the same defence/foreign policies, etc, and 'outer Europe', where we adhere to a common set of trade principles/laws (and maybe a few other useful things like joint medical care when travelling within member states/sharing of police files), but otherwise retain full sovereignty.

That way, everyone gets what they want. No complaining, no moaning. One version of the EU as it was originally set up, one version of a new federalised state. Democratically chosen. Done and done.

I think a federal solution is perfectly workable without trampling all over individual states traditions, it just requires certain things to be centralised and a fairly drastic overhaul of the structures in place.

My frustration with the UK comes primarily from the idiocy and bias in the UK media against the EU, which infects public discourse in Ireland since most of our tabloid newspapers are thinly disguised reskins of your tabloids. The shrill wailing of the eurosceptics is heard here, and pushes opinion towards euroscepticism, despite the fact that small nations like Ireland, generally, do well out of the EU.

On another level, British refusal to integrate has held us back when we would have liked to. For example, the british refusal to take part in the Schengen area reforms means that we can't take part either, as you guys are the most common point of travel and it would interfere with our own travel agreements with you. So your intransigence in that regard has actually negatively impacted my life, as I have to carry my passport with me around Europe instead of a nice convenient ID card. And it is an example of British blocking having an effect outside of the UK against the wishes of the populace of that country.

I could go on, but suffice it to say I am pretty frustrated with the situation, and reckon if you guys want out, get out. Otherwise, start co-operating and being constructive, rather than obstructive.

The EU does seem to annoy me quite a bit, some of the policies they try and force onto other nations is a joke.

Take transport, sports cars are a hobby of mine, I like to work on them myself, upgrade them and drive briskly (when its safe to do so).

However the powers of EU would love nothing more than to stop joe public working on their cars, instead you have to take it to a main dealer and pay through the nose, not put anything on your car that isnt OEM and worst of all fit a black box so the fuzz know where you are what your doing and at what speed!!

Its pretty much a case of France and Brussels saying Jump and everyone else saying how high, the irony is that a French chap 200 years ago tried the same and yet everyone was rather against that

God forbid you might have to obey the speed limit, how unreasonable.

 Da Boss wrote:
God forbid you might have to obey the speed limit, how unreasonable.

Its not just that though, its the fact all the information is on hand, so your pretty much being monitored at all times. Like I said I do travel quickly when it is safe to do so, I dislike computers taking away common sense.

 Da Boss wrote:
God forbid you might have to obey the speed limit, how unreasonable.

God forgive that some folks want to do things "differently".

Sounds like the US's squabbles between the Feds vs the State.

 Da Boss wrote:


I think a federal solution is perfectly workable without trampling all over individual states traditions, it just requires certain things to be centralised and a fairly drastic overhaul of the structures in place.

But this is the thing, there's protecting 'traditions', and protecting 'sovereignty'. The ability to maintain an independent control of your borders, currency, taxation, right to make laws, and so on. Protecting the former is not protecting the latter.

As things stand, Brussels regularly makes moves every five to ten years to usurp that little bit of extra authority from governments, and re-appropriate that power to themselves. The EU was originally meant to be a trade institution, an economic trade zone. It was NOT proposed to the British public as an alternative to Government.

You say that a federal solution is perfectly workable, and I agree, because it works in the US. But the issue is not whether a federal state is impossible, the issue is that nobody was asked if they wanted one.

My frustration with the UK comes primarily from the idiocy and bias in the UK media against the EU, which infects public discourse in Ireland since most of our tabloid newspapers are thinly disguised reskins of your tabloids. The shrill wailing of the eurosceptics is heard here, and pushes opinion towards euroscepticism, despite the fact that small nations like Ireland, generally, do well out of the EU.

Does receiving benefit from something mean you are obligated to like it? I mean, seriously, if you tell me that I personally would be £5000 a year better off if America takes control of Britain, I still wouldn't have necessarily said it was a good thing or that I wanted it to happen.

On another level, British refusal to integrate has held us back when we would have liked to. For example, the british refusal to take part in the Schengen area reforms means that we can't take part either, as you guys are the most common point of travel and it would interfere with our own travel agreements with you. So your intransigence in that regard has actually negatively impacted my life, as I have to carry my passport with me around Europe instead of a nice convenient ID card. And it is an example of British blocking having an effect outside of the UK against the wishes of the populace of that country.

I can understand your personal annoyance about the necessity of carrying passports in a foreign country, paperwork is annoying. That said, I'm not really sure that Irish travelling rights should overrule the sovereign right of a different country with a population thirteen times the size to determine their border control policy.

I could go on, but suffice it to say I am pretty frustrated with the situation, and reckon if you guys want out, get out. Otherwise, start co-operating and being constructive, rather than obstructive.

We don't want out. We want what we signed up for. A free trade zone, and a small amount of judicial co-operation. Not to be subsumed into a new undemocratic, unaccountable superpower. Is that really so bad?

If you come to an agreement with your neighbour about your kids sharing lawn space, and then over the next few years receive progressive letters where he claims the right of his other neighbours to also use your lawn space, his right to garden your lawn space, his ownership of your lawn space, and finally his ownership of you and your kid, it's not really too suspect when you turn around, and go, 'What?'The first two are reasonable/low key enough that you accede, but then they start pushing on the following ones, and you have to either turn around and say, 'Please stick to our original agreement'.

If Europe's response is, 'Either we own your lawn space, or we cancel the entire agreement', then so be it. But we'd much rather just have what we started with, because the reason we agreed it was because it worked for everyone. We just don't want the add-on packages.

You are, from my perspective, twisting the argument. You make out that the transition to a more federal europe is some how dishonest.
In reality, the two points of view were both there at the start and are still there now.

As to your point on travelling rights, I hope you'll admit the population argument is a bit of a red herring. I certainly respect britain's right to decide how it runs it's borders, however, I reserve the right to be annoyed about it .

I find your lawn analogy pretty specious I've got to say. However, I find most British arguments against the EU to be kind of hysterical so perhaps my strong pre-existing bias is coloring my perspective, so I will come back and look again when I feel less grumpy

I mean, I think this trade treaty is exactly the sort of thing I'd like those eurosceptic MPs to kick up a fuss over and block, but instead it seems to fit snugly with british interests. More Europe when it suits us, less when it is politically convenient is how it appears to me.

Which is of course fine and pragmatic, until you get the point that we are fast approaching, where your neighbours have become frustrated with you to the point that they hope you'll just finally decide to pack it in.

 Da Boss wrote:
You are, from my perspective, twisting the argument. You make out that the transition to a more federal europe is some how dishonest.
In reality, the two points of view were both there at the start and are still there now.

Really? If so, I'd be obliged if you could point out in the original agreement forming the EU, or in the document of Britain's joining, where we submitted to joining a federal institution. If you can, I'll gladly concede the point, but I don't believe its the case.

As to your point on travelling rights, I hope you'll admit the population argument is a bit of a red herring. I certainly respect britain's right to decide how it runs it's borders, however, I reserve the right to be annoyed about it .

The population of the respective countries could have become tangential depending on how the discussion proceeds on this point, so I thought I'd slip it in at the start.

To generalise a bit, relations between countries always impact upon other unrelated countries. Relations between the Soviet Union and America impacted upon affairs between most states in most of the world (if you were pro-America, you were anti-Soviet, and vice versa). Alternatively, our trade with China in low cost goods affects our need to trade with India or South Korea for low cost goods. The fact at the end of the day though, is that those relations are between those two other powers, and whilst you're certainly entitled to complain about the impact it has on you, your opinion has nothing to do with their debates/issues, and will never be taken into account by them. And that applies for all negotiations to which you are not a part, and always will do.

To show where I was linking the population, sometimes a nation is large and powerful enough to try and force its way into negotiations (think Germany in Morocco). But Ireland does not have the size or status required in order to necessitate that sort of consideration by other powers.

I find your lawn analogy pretty specious I've got to say. However, I find most British arguments against the EU to be kind of hysterical so perhaps my strong pre-existing bias is coloring my perspective, so I will come back and look again when I feel less grumpy

Fair enough.

More Europe when it suits us, less when it is politically convenient is how it appears to me.

Is that surprising? I mean, we joined the EU in the first place, so we're clearly not anti-EU with regards to specific free-trade concepts. We just object to what it's become, and where it's going.

Which is of course fine and pragmatic, until you get the point that we are fast approaching, where your neighbours have become frustrated with you to the point that they hope you'll just finally decide to pack it in.

The funny thing is that nobody actually wants us to leave. The Germans want to keep up as one of the strongest economies (as they'll end up bankrolling everything if we go). The French need us as a counterbalance to stop Germany dominating the EU. And more or less everyone accepts that losing the City of London would result in a serious blow to their military capacity, high tech sector, financial capabilities, and political clout. We're joint top partners in the EU. The only ones who can rival us at this stage of the game, quite frankly, are Germany. If we leave, it could precipitate the entire EU economy starting to crumble like a house of cards.

So the odds are, they'll give us what we want, i.e. we'll keep shovelling spadefuls of money into the gaping maw of Brussels whilst retaining our sovereignty, and everyone will be happy.

Well, maybe not the Eastern Europeans who have to put up with a revised Schengen agreement getting in the way of getting over here for work, but everyone else will be alright.

 Da Boss wrote:
God forbid you might have to obey the speed limit, how unreasonable.

I find it mildly ironic that you'd say that... But being from Germany, and my having lived there for a period of time give me a better idea where you're coming from. (I say ironic because you do have the Autobahn, which is roughly 60% "speed free" zones)

I see the argument being made that people who want to modify/work on their cars being "forced" into putting what is basically a Lojack system into their vehicles.

But, let's take this line of reasoning in a different direction a bit... Let's say that I own a "fast" car, but I want to make it "faster" so that, on Saturday/Sunday, when I take it out to Nurburgring, or Silverstone, or the Local Track (wherever that may be) and race it. Why should I be forced to put some monitoring equipment in my vehicle? Again, using my experience of Germany, I know that being pulled over by the Polizei is almost none due to the safety concerns for the officers, but that there are quite a few permanent cameras, as well as the temporary speed trap cameras placed around at various points of the road system; So I am very reluctant/wary of speeding in an area with a speed limit sign.


Frankly, I'd welcome everyone having the same roadway laws and systems in place... Personally, I'm in favor of EVERYONE in the EU getting the German treatment in regards to Autobahn/ "interstate" roadways, however some places are speed averse (based on watching Top Gear, Switzerland is notoriously "slow" as if they are deathly afraid of speed), so it'd be a tough fight. Plus, other countries that either don't have the funds, or just don't take care of roads the same way as Germany would have to adjust their ways, etc.

 Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Frankly, I'd welcome everyone having the same roadway laws and systems in place... Personally, I'm in favor of EVERYONE in the EU getting the German treatment in regards to Autobahn/ "interstate" roadways, however some places are speed averse (based on watching Top Gear, Switzerland is notoriously "slow" as if they are deathly afraid of speed), so it'd be a tough fight. Plus, other countries that either don't have the funds, or just don't take care of roads the same way as Germany would have to adjust their ways, etc.

Switzerland is not part of the EU.

Daston wrote:
Like I said I do travel quickly when it is safe to do so, I dislike computers taking away common sense.

Why can't I play with dynamite when it's perfectly safe, then?

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

Daston wrote:
Like I said I do travel quickly when it is safe to do so, I dislike computers taking away common sense.

Why can't I play with dynamite when it's perfectly safe, then?

Your comparison of dynamite to a car is terrifyingly ignorant of things mechanical. Thats ok Mr. Nanny State. The unelected Brussels government is there to help. Now pick up that can citizen, but fill out this can picking up permission slip first.