The economic consequences of Brexit (Vol 2)
Discussion
pgh said:
JJ’s favourite thing seems to be accusing people of lying.
Only where people are lying. If you have a link that shows otherwise you are more then welcome to post it. I very much doubt that you'll do that. pgh said:
Post an opinion he disagrees with - you’re a liar.
No. I disagree with most people on NP&E. Only tiny fraction of those are liars. Which is not really surprising. pgh said:
Cite an article where there is potentially contrary data available elsewhere - liar.
Mention the name of someone who JJ thinks is a liar? You’re now a liar too!
Yet again, it would be helpful if you would provide proof of your claims. Mention the name of someone who JJ thinks is a liar? You’re now a liar too!
pgh said:
A very quick google for jjlynn27 using “liar” gives 115 hits. Likewise “lie” used 244 times, “lies” 216 times and “lying” 251 times. Some of these hits will be from where he has been quoted,
That's not as sad as that bloke going over pages and pages and counting perceived insults remain vs leave. It also slightly less entertaining. pgh said:
but forms a good picture for me.
Shocker. I have no idea who you are, but if I had to guess someone who's holding a grudge over some perceived insult.
Crackie said:
Sorry jj, the project timeline was incredibly short for a product of that type. It took Dyson 4 years do his new hairdryer. There was not plenty of time, not even close.
I'm genuinely curious. The regs were announced in 2002/3 and the WC was in 2006, and that's not plenty of time? Did it take Dyson 4 years to sort out compliance? I'm missing something here, and I'm not sure what.
I am still interested in understanding the timeline for the regulation impact - I say that partly as a eng PM who always wants to learn.
On the lying, unless it is a recent example with evidence, it adds little. And of course many have called the bus and recession lies, so a search doesn’t prove much. Calling posters liars is not really very nice. It has been done to me and is unpleasant - if the people doing it in my case weren’t such obvious planks I might even have been upset.
On the lying, unless it is a recent example with evidence, it adds little. And of course many have called the bus and recession lies, so a search doesn’t prove much. Calling posters liars is not really very nice. It has been done to me and is unpleasant - if the people doing it in my case weren’t such obvious planks I might even have been upset.
PurpleMoonlight said:
About the world cup?
But you still had a years notice of the change in regulations. To have to dump a load of stock at the point it became effective seems more like mismanagement to me.
From the date I had the idea for the subwoofer design to the date the first products were in the shops was 17 weeks. Where do you get a years notice from ? The electrical design period was even shorter. Approx 12 weeks iirc.But you still had a years notice of the change in regulations. To have to dump a load of stock at the point it became effective seems more like mismanagement to me.
It was the electrical side where the compliance question arose. 12 weeks from circuit design sign off to volume prod in the shops would be quick today; it was incredibly quick in 2006.
Edited by Crackie on Sunday 3rd December 10:27
jjlynn27 said:
I'm genuinely curious. The regs were announced in 2002/3 and the WC was in 2006, and that's not plenty of time?
Did it take Dyson 4 years to sort out compliance? I'm missing something here, and I'm not sure what.
Hopefully my answer to purplemoonlight clarifies the project timeline. No idea how long it took Dyson to sort the compliance side of things but I think he claims it took 4 years to develop. I'll check.Did it take Dyson 4 years to sort out compliance? I'm missing something here, and I'm not sure what.
EDIT. 4 years, 103 engineers and £50 million to development the hair dryer, apparently.
Edited by Crackie on Sunday 3rd December 10:39
Crackie said:
From the date I had the idea for the subwoofer design to the date the first products were in the shops was 17 weeks. Where do you get a years notice from ? The electrical design period was even shorter. Approx 12 weeks iirc.
I'm sure there is more to this, but some are struggling with the timeline.As the regulation came into force in Feb 2003, then there was several years before your sub woofer project. 17 weeks - lets call it 4 months - to get into the shops by May 2006 (for the Germany world cup) - the project would start in say Jan 2006.
The regulations by this point were nearly three years old, so the compliance issues with bromine retardant was not new. Even if it was a revision of the regulation, it would have come in with a minimum of 1 years notice.
[And lets not forget 2 years is plenty of time to completely adjust a $3trillion economy to totally new trading deal....OK park that for a moment
]It sounds from your other posts that the materials used in the original UK prototype were compliant but the Chinese supplier had some issues with his supply base or manufacture of heat shrink.
I don't see any evidence that the UK would not make exactly the same regulation for these materials, nor that the way the EU implemented it was to blame as such.
Furthermore, if the product is destined for an EU market, brexit will make not a jot of difference to your company from this point of view - it seems clear that the product always had an EU wide business case anyway.
I can see how this seemingly minor regulatory issue would have annoyed you as the component was so close to compliance - but again that is really an issue for your supplier, and to be frank your own supplier surveillance processes.
I am a big supporter of UK companies providing quick to market product and completely understand how regulations like this can be seen as a PITA. However I understand why they are there, consider the UK would enforce bromine content in exactly the same way, and see little reason to attack the EU for it. Indeed, the UK will no longer have any influence on RoHS which it currently does - and as you know this will be not just at government level, but also industry at various levels, including SMEs as well as the big players who are all consulted on RoHS matters - google and you'll find the consultations and how the feedback from suppliers shapes the regulations.
Brexit only really threatens to introduce tariffs and customs friction (but lets hope not) which will make you company probably less likely to get the work in the first place (if it was a contract job for Toshiba, which it sounded like).
I'm not sure if you share this analysis, but I'd be interested to know why not.
(irrespective of Brexit I find root cause analysis interesting anyway)
Edited by ///ajd on Sunday 3rd December 10:45
Crackie said:
jjlynn27 said:
I'm genuinely curious. The regs were announced in 2002/3 and the WC was in 2006, and that's not plenty of time?
Did it take Dyson 4 years to sort out compliance? I'm missing something here, and I'm not sure what.
Hopefully my answer to purplemoonlight clarifies the project timeline. No idea how long it took Dyson to sort the compliance side of things but I think he claims it took 4 years to develop. I'll check.Did it take Dyson 4 years to sort out compliance? I'm missing something here, and I'm not sure what.
///ajd said:
I'm sure there is more to this, but some are struggling with the timeline.
As the regulation came into force in Feb 2003, then there was several years before your sub woofer project. 17 weeks - lets call it 4 months - to get into the shops by May 2006 (for the Germany world cup) - the project would start in say Jan 2006.
The regulations by this point were nearly three years old, so the compliance issues with bromine retardant was not new. Even if it was a revision of the regulation, it would have come in with a minimum of 1 years notice.
[And lets not forget 2 years is plenty of time to completely adjust a $3trillion economy to totally new trading deal....OK park that for a moment]
It sounds from you other posts that the materials used in the original UK prototype were compliant but the Chinese supplier had some issues with his supply base or manufacture of heat shrink.
I don't see any evidence that the UK would not make exactly the same regulation for these materials, nor that the way the EU implemented it was to blame as such.
Furthermore, if the product is destined for an EU market, brexit will make not a jot of difference to your company from this point of view - it seems clear that the product always had an EU wide business case anyway.
I can see how this seemingly minor regulatory issue would have annoyed you as the component was so close to compliance - but again that is really an issue for your supplier, and to be frank your own supplier surveillance processes.
I am a big supporter of UK companies providing quick to market product and completely understand how regulations like this can be seen as a PITA. However I understand why they are there, consider the UK would enforce bromine content in exactly the same way, and see little reason to attack the EU for it. Indeed, the UK will no longer have any influence on RoHS which it currently does - and as you know this will be not just at government level, but also industry at various levels, including SMEs as well as the big players who are all consulted on RoHS matters - google and you'll find the consultations and how the feedback from suppliers shapes the regulations.
Brexit only really threatens to introduce tariffs and customs friction (but lets hope not) which will make you company probably less likely to get the work in the first place (if it was a contract job for Toshiba, which it sounded like).
I'm not sure if you share this analysis, but I'd be interested to know why not.
Thanks ///ajd, I am away from home replying from a dumbphone at the moment. I'll reply properly later today.As the regulation came into force in Feb 2003, then there was several years before your sub woofer project. 17 weeks - lets call it 4 months - to get into the shops by May 2006 (for the Germany world cup) - the project would start in say Jan 2006.
The regulations by this point were nearly three years old, so the compliance issues with bromine retardant was not new. Even if it was a revision of the regulation, it would have come in with a minimum of 1 years notice.
[And lets not forget 2 years is plenty of time to completely adjust a $3trillion economy to totally new trading deal....OK park that for a moment
]It sounds from you other posts that the materials used in the original UK prototype were compliant but the Chinese supplier had some issues with his supply base or manufacture of heat shrink.
I don't see any evidence that the UK would not make exactly the same regulation for these materials, nor that the way the EU implemented it was to blame as such.
Furthermore, if the product is destined for an EU market, brexit will make not a jot of difference to your company from this point of view - it seems clear that the product always had an EU wide business case anyway.
I can see how this seemingly minor regulatory issue would have annoyed you as the component was so close to compliance - but again that is really an issue for your supplier, and to be frank your own supplier surveillance processes.
I am a big supporter of UK companies providing quick to market product and completely understand how regulations like this can be seen as a PITA. However I understand why they are there, consider the UK would enforce bromine content in exactly the same way, and see little reason to attack the EU for it. Indeed, the UK will no longer have any influence on RoHS which it currently does - and as you know this will be not just at government level, but also industry at various levels, including SMEs as well as the big players who are all consulted on RoHS matters - google and you'll find the consultations and how the feedback from suppliers shapes the regulations.
Brexit only really threatens to introduce tariffs and customs friction (but lets hope not) which will make you company probably less likely to get the work in the first place (if it was a contract job for Toshiba, which it sounded like).
I'm not sure if you share this analysis, but I'd be interested to know why not.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/theresa-may-...
According to the article Millburn blamed the leave vote on the lack of social mobility.
According to the article Millburn blamed the leave vote on the lack of social mobility.
voyds9 said:
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/theresa-may-...
According to the article Millburn blamed the leave vote on the lack of social mobility.
Wow, you can smell the spin in that article. According to the article Millburn blamed the leave vote on the lack of social mobility.
So, it's not a resignation, because his contract has actually come to an end - he has "chosen not to reapply". OK.
To be clear, the government need to be doing more than filling out comfortable commission chairs to deal with these social issues, but that seems to have escaped the people who're in that role - they seen more concerned about their reports than actually being able to effect change.
Tuna said:
Wow, you can smell the spin in that article.
So, it's not a resignation, because his contract has actually come to an end - he has "chosen not to reapply". OK.
To be clear, the government need to be doing more than filling out comfortable commission chairs to deal with these social issues, but that seems to have escaped the people who're in that role - they seen more concerned about their reports than actually being able to effect change.
I think the point they were making is that they could not make head way in the one key issue that motivated your long post earlier (social divide) - because of a lack of commitment from government, too distracted with brexit (which doesn't help this very issue as they say, and I pointed out too), so they have all upped sticks in protest.So, it's not a resignation, because his contract has actually come to an end - he has "chosen not to reapply". OK.
To be clear, the government need to be doing more than filling out comfortable commission chairs to deal with these social issues, but that seems to have escaped the people who're in that role - they seen more concerned about their reports than actually being able to effect change.
You should be glad they are trying to stick up for the very point you are protesting about!
The political vacuum in Germany crystallises the situation for the EU and Euro right now. In many ways, the crossroads the Germans have reached internally - more or less EU and Euro integration - reflects the very real and necessary decisions required by the EU.
Let's be clear, the Eurozone could not survive the departure of any of the PIIGS, save for Greece, because the scale and the interconnectedness of the bank debts (now on sovereign books) simply will not allow it without catastrophe. The ECB is powerless to end the austerity in its current form, and the logical answer is for fiscal integration and for Germany to shoulder some of the debt it has created with its EU trade balance. This is a big ask but an obvious step, unless the Euro is going to be somehow split into 'good' and 'bad' tiers.
One of the issues for the UK remaining within the EU is that it's very presence would further complicate these very necessary developments. Of course the EU could well do without losing our financial support, but at the same time, it was always likely that we would become ever more the cuckoo in the nest, further and further isolated merely by having our own currency and financial sector.
Let's be clear, the Eurozone could not survive the departure of any of the PIIGS, save for Greece, because the scale and the interconnectedness of the bank debts (now on sovereign books) simply will not allow it without catastrophe. The ECB is powerless to end the austerity in its current form, and the logical answer is for fiscal integration and for Germany to shoulder some of the debt it has created with its EU trade balance. This is a big ask but an obvious step, unless the Euro is going to be somehow split into 'good' and 'bad' tiers.
One of the issues for the UK remaining within the EU is that it's very presence would further complicate these very necessary developments. Of course the EU could well do without losing our financial support, but at the same time, it was always likely that we would become ever more the cuckoo in the nest, further and further isolated merely by having our own currency and financial sector.
Crackie said:
From the date I had the idea for the subwoofer design to the date the first products were in the shops was 17 weeks. Where do you get a years notice from ? The electrical design period was even shorter. Approx 12 weeks iirc.
///ajd said:
I'm sure there is more to this, but some are struggling with the timeline.
As the regulation came into force in Feb 2003, then there was several years before your sub woofer project. 17 weeks - lets call it 4 months - to get into the shops by May 2006 (for the Germany world cup) - the project would start in say Jan 2006.
Project start and volume prod delivery dates were both approx. 3-4 weeks earlier than above to try and ensure sales in the run up to WC.As the regulation came into force in Feb 2003, then there was several years before your sub woofer project. 17 weeks - lets call it 4 months - to get into the shops by May 2006 (for the Germany world cup) - the project would start in say Jan 2006.
///ajd said:
The regulations by this point were nearly three years old, so the compliance issues with bromine retardant was not new. Even if it was a revision of the regulation, it would have come in with a minimum of 1 years notice.
There had been no change in the regulations. There was no issue with the product design and all production was fully compliant. ///ajd said:
[And lets not forget 2 years is plenty of time to completely adjust a $3trillion economy to totally new trading deal....OK park that for a moment ]
Yes.......lets park that for now. ] ///ajd said:
It sounds from your other posts that the materials used in the original UK prototype were compliant but the Chinese supplier had some issues with his supply base or manufacture of heat shrink.
In addition to individual components being tested, Toshiba decided to evaluate materials from the PP & 1st prod batches. The UK division of SGS found all restricted materials were within the EU thresholds; the Chinese SGS facility published a test result which showed a result 0.1042% for the Bromine. The limit was 0.1%. ///ajd said:
I don't see any evidence that the UK would not make exactly the same regulation for these materials, nor that the way the EU implemented it was to blame as such.
My feeling at the time was that there was not sufficient test infrastructure in the EU to support industry. The retest had to be carried out in the far east because there wasn't a certified / approved facility in the EU who were able to carry out the test at short notice.
///ajd said:
I can see how this seemingly minor regulatory issue would have annoyed you as the component was so close to compliance - but again that is really an issue for your supplier, and to be frank your own supplier surveillance processes.
I was indeed annoyed; this is the only project I had ever been late with. The supplier did nothing wrong; all of their production was compliant. Regarding the supplier surveillance; they were and continue to be an excellent supplier. The issue was cause by 2 different divisions of the same inspection company ( SGS ) not concurring about their own test results for the same item. ///ajd said:
I am a big supporter of UK companies providing quick to market product and completely understand how regulations like this can be seen as a PITA. However I understand why they are there, consider the UK would enforce bromine content in exactly the same way, and see little reason to attack the EU for it. Indeed, the UK will no longer have any influence on RoHS which it currently does - and as you know this will be not just at government level, but also industry at various levels, including SMEs as well as the big players who are all consulted on RoHS matters - google and you'll find the consultations and how the feedback from suppliers shapes the regulations.
I'm not sure if you share this analysis, but I'd be interested to know why not.
(irrespective of Brexit I find root cause analysis interesting anyway)
I agree that that it may be slightly fairly unfair to be overly critical of the EU for this lack of test capacity but during that period the consumer goods industry was also enduring the introduction of lead-free solder. It was frustrating to discover that exemptions had been given for various fields ( data storage, switching, telecoms, military, ) because lead free was acknowledged by the EU to have reliability issues. I'm not sure if you share this analysis, but I'd be interested to know why not.
(irrespective of Brexit I find root cause analysis interesting anyway)
Root cause analysis is interesting to me too. No doubt you've sat through your fair share of FMEA meetings, reviewed multiple 8D reports & Ishikawa diagrams.
Edited by Crackie on Sunday 3rd December 22:58
Jockman said:
You may well be right Tuna. Yes FS.has been very adept at bringing in revenue to the exchequer and as a small manufacturer I'm happy to doff my cap. We could go back into the thatcher years, a reaction to the 70s, and maybe discuss how Corbyn is looking to redress this imbalance.
Successive govts have fought the corner for services. Perhaps not so for manufacturing. I lament the loss of skills we had in the manufacturing arena.
But, hey, we are where we are.
Sorry, missed this one - I was trying to say we shouldn't be doing manufacturing down - it has been holding it's own despite the collapse of 'heavy industry' which could hardly be avoided when global manufacturing came online. The success story is how UK manufacturing has re-invented itself, and fought off global challenges. Unfortunately it gets overshadowed by FS. We shouldn't get into the mindset where one precludes the other.Successive govts have fought the corner for services. Perhaps not so for manufacturing. I lament the loss of skills we had in the manufacturing arena.
But, hey, we are where we are.
Edited by Tuna on Sunday 3rd December 23:23
This note provides basic figures on UK trade with the EU.
Main points:
• The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2016, UK exports to
the EU were £236 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were
£318 billion (54% of all UK imports).
• The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has fallen over time from 54% in
2006 to 43% in 2016. The share of UK imports accounted for by the EU fell from
58% in 2002 to 50% in 2011 before increasing to 54% in 2016.
• The UK had an overall trade deficit of £82 billion with the EU in 2016. A surplus of
£14 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of £96 billion on trade
in goods.
• The UK had a trade surplus of £39 billion with non-EU countries. A surplus of £78
billion on trade in services outweighed a deficit of £39 billion on trade in goods.
• Services accounted for 38% of the UK’s exports to the EU in 2016. Financial services
and other business services are important categories of services exports to the EU.
• Wales had the highest percentage of goods exports going to the EU of all the
countries and regions in the UK in 2016. Northern Ireland had the highest
proportion of goods imports from the EU.
• EU tariffs are generally low but are high on some goods, especially agricultural
products.
Average EU tariff by product type (%)
Animal products 15.7
Dairy products 35.4
Fruit, vegetables and plants 10.5
Coffee, tea 6.1
Cereals and preparations 12.8
Oilseeds, fats and oils 5.6
Sugars and confectionery 23.6
Beverages and tobacco 19.6
Cotton 0.0
Other agricultural products 3.6
Fish and fish products 12.0
Minerals and metals 2.0
Petroleum 2.5
Chemicals 4.5
Wood, paper etc 0.9
Textiles 6.5
Clothing 11.5
Leather, footwear etc 4.1
Non-electrical machinery 1.9
Electrical machinery 2.8
Transport equipment 4.3
Other manufactures 2.6
Main points:
• The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2016, UK exports to
the EU were £236 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were
£318 billion (54% of all UK imports).
• The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has fallen over time from 54% in
2006 to 43% in 2016. The share of UK imports accounted for by the EU fell from
58% in 2002 to 50% in 2011 before increasing to 54% in 2016.
• The UK had an overall trade deficit of £82 billion with the EU in 2016. A surplus of
£14 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of £96 billion on trade
in goods.
• The UK had a trade surplus of £39 billion with non-EU countries. A surplus of £78
billion on trade in services outweighed a deficit of £39 billion on trade in goods.
• Services accounted for 38% of the UK’s exports to the EU in 2016. Financial services
and other business services are important categories of services exports to the EU.
• Wales had the highest percentage of goods exports going to the EU of all the
countries and regions in the UK in 2016. Northern Ireland had the highest
proportion of goods imports from the EU.
• EU tariffs are generally low but are high on some goods, especially agricultural
products.
Average EU tariff by product type (%)
Animal products 15.7
Dairy products 35.4
Fruit, vegetables and plants 10.5
Coffee, tea 6.1
Cereals and preparations 12.8
Oilseeds, fats and oils 5.6
Sugars and confectionery 23.6
Beverages and tobacco 19.6
Cotton 0.0
Other agricultural products 3.6
Fish and fish products 12.0
Minerals and metals 2.0
Petroleum 2.5
Chemicals 4.5
Wood, paper etc 0.9
Textiles 6.5
Clothing 11.5
Leather, footwear etc 4.1
Non-electrical machinery 1.9
Electrical machinery 2.8
Transport equipment 4.3
Other manufactures 2.6
jsf said:
This note provides basic figures on UK trade with the EU.
Main points:
• The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2016, UK exports to
the EU were £236 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were
£318 billion (54% of all UK imports).
• The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has fallen over time from 54% in
2006 to 43% in 2016. The share of UK imports accounted for by the EU fell from
58% in 2002 to 50% in 2011 before increasing to 54% in 2016.
• The UK had an overall trade deficit of £82 billion with the EU in 2016. A surplus of
£14 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of £96 billion on trade
in goods.
• The UK had a trade surplus of £39 billion with non-EU countries. A surplus of £78
billion on trade in services outweighed a deficit of £39 billion on trade in goods.
• Services accounted for 38% of the UK’s exports to the EU in 2016. Financial services
and other business services are important categories of services exports to the EU.
• Wales had the highest percentage of goods exports going to the EU of all the
countries and regions in the UK in 2016. Northern Ireland had the highest
proportion of goods imports from the EU.
• EU tariffs are generally low but are high on some goods, especially agricultural
products.
Average EU tariff by product type (%)
Animal products 15.7
Dairy products 35.4
Fruit, vegetables and plants 10.5
Coffee, tea 6.1
Cereals and preparations 12.8
Oilseeds, fats and oils 5.6
Sugars and confectionery 23.6
Beverages and tobacco 19.6
Cotton 0.0
Other agricultural products 3.6
Fish and fish products 12.0
Minerals and metals 2.0
Petroleum 2.5
Chemicals 4.5
Wood, paper etc 0.9
Textiles 6.5
Clothing 11.5
Leather, footwear etc 4.1
Non-electrical machinery 1.9
Electrical machinery 2.8
Transport equipment 4.3
Other manufactures 2.6
Thanks for posting JSFMain points:
• The EU, taken as a whole is the UK’s largest trading partner. In 2016, UK exports to
the EU were £236 billion (43% of all UK exports). UK imports from the EU were
£318 billion (54% of all UK imports).
• The share of UK exports accounted for by the EU has fallen over time from 54% in
2006 to 43% in 2016. The share of UK imports accounted for by the EU fell from
58% in 2002 to 50% in 2011 before increasing to 54% in 2016.
• The UK had an overall trade deficit of £82 billion with the EU in 2016. A surplus of
£14 billion on trade in services was outweighed by a deficit of £96 billion on trade
in goods.
• The UK had a trade surplus of £39 billion with non-EU countries. A surplus of £78
billion on trade in services outweighed a deficit of £39 billion on trade in goods.
• Services accounted for 38% of the UK’s exports to the EU in 2016. Financial services
and other business services are important categories of services exports to the EU.
• Wales had the highest percentage of goods exports going to the EU of all the
countries and regions in the UK in 2016. Northern Ireland had the highest
proportion of goods imports from the EU.
• EU tariffs are generally low but are high on some goods, especially agricultural
products.
Average EU tariff by product type (%)
Animal products 15.7
Dairy products 35.4
Fruit, vegetables and plants 10.5
Coffee, tea 6.1
Cereals and preparations 12.8
Oilseeds, fats and oils 5.6
Sugars and confectionery 23.6
Beverages and tobacco 19.6
Cotton 0.0
Other agricultural products 3.6
Fish and fish products 12.0
Minerals and metals 2.0
Petroleum 2.5
Chemicals 4.5
Wood, paper etc 0.9
Textiles 6.5
Clothing 11.5
Leather, footwear etc 4.1
Non-electrical machinery 1.9
Electrical machinery 2.8
Transport equipment 4.3
Other manufactures 2.6
If we ever move on to trade talks the deal the EU are currently offering safeguards trade in goods only......... where we have a £96 billion trade deficit with the EU. I don't think therefore it is an extreme position to query exactly what sacrifices should be made for such a deal. Nor in fact to question whether we should sign it at all, if it were free, as it ignores our essential interests.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff