Dorothy,

Regarding your question of June 8th @ 8.44 a.m.

''What does the United Kingdom flag stand for, and why is it called the ''Union Jack''?''

Dorothy, you are confused, but it's not your fault.

1. The United Kingdom is the only country in the world that does not have an ensign.

2. The one ensign you are referring to has two quite separate names: ''Union Jack'' & ''Union Flag''.

3. ''Union Jack'' is any ''Union Flag'' that is smaller than 4 1/2' x 9'

4. ''Union Flag'' is any ''Union Jack'' that is 4 1/2' x 9' or larger.

5. It is irrelevant whether the bit of rag flying is a ''Union Jack'' or a ''Union Flag'', it may only be flown by the following persons:

(a) Royal Navy seamen
(b) Royal Marines marines
(c) United Kingdom Army private soldiers & common soldiers
(d) Royal Air Force craftsmen
(e) Royal Air Force Armored Car Regiment craftsmen

6. Unlike every other body politic in the world that has only one single ensign for its' town, or its' commonwealth, or its' alliance, or a separate ensign for each, the United Kingdom has at least eleven different ensigns that may be flown anytime, anywhere, by anyone, in the United Kingdom. Additionally there are five different standards that may be flown by anyone, but only at certain times at only certain places. Pretty confusing, so I'll list only the eleven ensigns:

(a) South Wales Ensign
(b) A completely Red Ensign with a South Wales Ensign in canton
(c) Wales Ensign
(d) A completely Red Ensign with a Wales Ensign in canton
(e) West Wales Ensign
(f) A completely Red Ensign with a West Wales Ensign in canton
(g) Ulster Ensign
(h) A completely Red Ensign with a Ulster Ensign in canton
(i) North Wales Ensign
(j) A completely Red Ensign with a North Wales Ensign in canton
(k) A completely Red Ensign with a Union Jack or a Union Flag in canton

7. The ''Union Jack'' / ''Union Flag'' is the most unusual ensign in the world, because the slightest alteration in the proportions of the ensign will severely alter its' design, and become immediately noticeable to the eye. Despite this, just such an alteration is made for United Kingdom Army Infantry Regiments, but then such ''Union Jack'' is always referred to as the ''Union Color'' or ''Queen's Color''.

8. The ''Union Jack'' & ''Union Flag'' ensign is unusual in that it is constructed in 60 unit lengths, instead of the usual 96 unit lengths.

9. Not only is the ''Union Jack'' & ''Union Flag'' not the ensign of the United Kingdom, but to call it so is doubly incorrect as it was invented before the U.K. itself was invented, not after.

10. The ''Union Jack'' & ''Union Flag'' is the strangest ensign in the world. It is composed of a North Wales cross superimposed on top of a West Wales cross. Only problem is, West Wales doesn't have a cross, but we won't go there. Superimposed on the superimposed cross is a South Wales cross. Wales is not represented on the ''Union Jack'' & ''Union Flag''. Cigar smoke without the cigar comes to mind. Dorothy, I'm getting exhausted and I'm not even british or gaelic, so I'm moving out for some fresh air.

11. The regulations concerning the ''Union Jack'' & ''Union Flag'' were issued by the governments of Sth. Wales, West Wales, & Nth. Wales on May 5th 1634.

12. A ''jack'' of wine is 7.200 cu.'', and is half the usual tavern purchase of a ''jill'' of wine of 14.400 cu.''

13. No Dorothy, the ''Union Flag'' is called a ''Union Flag'', not a ''Union Jill''. But maybe they should have called it a ''Union Dorothy'' instead.

Info @

http://www.weights-and-measures.com

And topic:

Common Fluid Measure & Common Dry Measure

The above is total dis-information. May I refer the reader to http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/page398.asp.

I think that Her Majesty's web site carries more authority than does XCole's.

The followng can safely be said about the Union Jack (or Union Flag to be techncial), without fear of contradiction by x-cole, martin or anyone else:

The Cross of St. George commemorates a real person, George, born in AD 275, who became a Roman soldier and was probably (though absolute proof is lacking) posted in York for two years. He was arrested in AD 301 for failing to obey an order of the current Roman Emperor to bow before a statue of him which was placed in every town in the Empire (most Roman Emperors, apart from being sexually dysfunctional, also believed themselves to be Gods). George refused because he was a sincere Christian, and considered he should therefore only bow down and worship the one true God. He was imprisoned and tortured in prison on and off for two years after that, but failed to abjure his faith. Eventually he was executed.

The Cross of St. Patrick commemorates a Welshman (a true Briton, in fact), who in his youth was dissolute and ran amok in Ireland. He repented and returned to the land of his birth and adopted the faith of his parents, who were devout Christians. He later went back to Ireland to evangelise it and was remarkably successful. So Wales *is* represented in the Union Jack. Patrick was born I think around 370 AD, in west Wales, and died about 60 years later.

Andrew of the Cross of St. Andrew, the Scottish saltire, was the brother of fellow-disciple Simon Peter. He was reputed to have been crucified for his Christian faith by the Romans and traditon has it that he was crucified diagonally - hence the diagonal cross.

I think I may have posted all this before on this bulletin board, but it doesn't hurt to repeat it, especially on the day that Britain has taken another tragic step towards abandoning its Christian Constitution and replacing it with a Godless European one. The founder of the English nation, Alfred the Great (according to a plaque which says precisely that on Alfred's statue in Winchester High Street), was also a sincere Christian; he codified the civil and criminal law of the emergent England according to Biblical principles, and translated part of the Bible into English into the bargain. He is the only British monarch the people have ever called 'Great'

<<
think I may have posted all this before on this bulletin board, but it doesn't hurt to repeat it, especially on the day that Britain has taken another tragic step towards abandoning its Christian Constitution and replacing it with a Godless European one.
>>

Tony, if you are referring to the proposed EU constitution, then I'm pretty sure you've got this wrong.

The EU constitution will only apply to the EU itself. It's nothing more than a set of rules that facilitate the workings of that organisation. It won't override National constitutions of member states any more than EU directives override National laws of member states. There are no offences for infringing EU directives in any of the member states.

re (Stan): "The EU constitution will only apply to the EU itself. It's nothing more than a set of rules that facilitate the workings of that organisation. It won't override National Constitutions of Member States any more than EU Directives override national laws of member states. There are no offences for infringing EU directives in any of the Member States".


REPLY: Stan, did you cut and paste this from a European Union Press Release?

The main way to analyse the development of the European Union is to examine the extent to which, year by year since 1 January 1973, more power has been transferred from the British Parliament (and indeed the other Parliaments of Europe) to the European institutions.

You are aware, I am sure, of the body of European law called the 'acquis communautaire', which consists of powers transferred to the European institutions from national Parliaments *in perpetuity*. It's known generally just as 'The Acquis'.

The whole point about the European Constitution is that it will extend 'The Acquis' significantly and, moreover, because of a considerable number of 'mini-passarelle' clauses in the Constitution which will permit the further extension of E.U. powers without another Treaty being signed, 'The Acquis' will simply grow and grow until the powers of our Westminster Parliament are extinguished.

On your point about E.U. Directives, here are some fundamental points:

1. They are devised and decided on by unelected European Commissioners, whatever the Members of the so-called 'European Parliament' may say

2. A great deal of British Parliamentary time is spent converting these Directives into British law. This is a time-consuming 'rubber stamp' procedure. The legal content of a European Dircective can never be changed, although sometimes, as in the case of British weights and measures, we are able to negotiate a delay of the inevitable. This procedure is a virtual sham to enable British politicians to pretend to their electorate that Parliament is still supreme, a comment trotted out a number of times in the British media over the past few weeks

3. If the European Constitution were to go through, European Directives would have an enitrely new form of supremacy, or superiority. They would have legal force automatically *i.e. the British Parliament would no longer even go through the charade of debating and considering them*. The replacement of laws being made by unelected Eurocrats instead of by elected British Members of Parliament would be nearly complete.

One contrast among many between the British Constitution and the European Constitution is that in Britain, the Head of State (the Queen, not Tony Blair) is said to derive her powers from God and is presented with a Bible as 'the lively oracles of God'. She also swears to uphold 'the Protestant faith', which after all was the making of this country in recent centuries. The European Constitution is, like its authors, humanist and therefore it makes no mention of God

Tony: "until the powers of our Westminster Parliament are extinguished."

Tony, even within the "European Superstate" (as you and other archconservatives and Luddites like to call it) Westminster will ALWAYS retain a certain amount of power. Never heard of a thing called "subsidiarity" ? It's the principle whereby the EU does not take action (except in the areas which fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level.

I myself am all for the transfer of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence to Europe. Why ?
Because this would increase the economic, military and political clout of the EU on the world stage.
Let's be honest for a sec: nowadays nobody takes us seriously anymore. Okay, we're in the G7 and the UN Security Council, but that's about it. Tony, do you really think that the White House thinks we are important ? Absolutely not. We are just the legitimation for George W Bush to show the rest of the world he does not act unilaterally. I feel we are taken advantage of.

That's why we need to be able to talk to the US (and China, Japan, India, Brazil, Russia, etc.) on an equal basis. The only way to do so, is to make sure we're at least "as big" as the US. And what's the most logical way? Indeed, the EU.

Imagine the EU having a British Defence Minister. Who would have more power ? That man or our "beloved" Geoff Hoon ? Think about it. We simply won't be able to keep our heads above water anymore when in 100 year's time the world will be reduced to 8-odd "power blocks" with at least 1/2 billion inhabitants each.

In other words: the UK should move to the core of the EU and try to gain as many powers as possible.

We already have all the powers we need. Ergo, your logic is flawed. How is ceding power only to be "granted" SOME of it again if we are really, really good a sensible or logical position??

Bryan: "We already have all the powers we need. Ergo, your logic is flawed."
As the EU is larger than the UK, those powers would be 10 times as big. Ergo, my logic is very logical.

"How is ceding power only to be "granted" SOME of it again if we are really, really good a sensible or logical position??"

You misunderstood me. I said: we should move to the core of the EU and try to gain as many powers as possible. In other words: I have no problem with us losing the power to set out the policy on foreign affairs, but we should try to have as many Britons as possible in European key positions. E.g. a Briton as European Minister for Foreign Affairs. This would be a lot better than having 25 different Ministers for the same thing and moreover we would have a lot more power than we have now.

<<
In other words: the UK should move to the core of the EU and try to gain as many powers as possible.
>>

One of the biggest obstacles to Britain playing a bigger role in European affairs is Britain's own making - the teaching of second languages in British schools is so appalling. The result is that very few Britons are qualifier to work in the European Civil Service due to lingusitic requirements.

<<
REPLY: Stan, did you cut and paste this from a European Union Press Release?
>>

Please don't insult my intelligence. Everything I have posted on this forum are my own thoughts/opinons/observations and in my own words. You are the cut and past merchant.

<<
2. A great deal of British Parliamentary time is spent converting these Directives into British law. This is a time-consuming 'rubber stamp' procedure. ...
>>

I'd take a closer look at that 'rubber stamp' If I were you Tony.

A couple of examples:

In UK law it is illegal to sell draught beer in pubs by the litre.

The directive 80/181/EEC, which UK aw is supposed to implement, allows the pint for draught beer but does not ban the litre.

The TSRGD contains numerous examples of road sign symbol specifications that fly in the face of the EU directive on units of measurement. Again the directive allows miles, yards, feet and inches on road signs but specifies the symbols that should be used so as not to conflict with international symbols for SI units, e.g. 'mile' not 'm' which is the internationally recognised symbol for the metre. TSRGD totally ignores all this.

Again that same directive allows Imperial units for UK and Ireland on road signs but doesn't ban metric.

As for those autocratic EU commissioners you talk about, far from imposing metric on the UK they don't care a fig as to whether Britain metricates or not, else why do you think that UK has been allowed to take so long to get where we are with it?

I like the Welsh flag

We all have our problems

Conrad, I did get your point, actually. I don't believe we need to be 'in Europe' to avoid submersion in this super-bloc world you speak of. I'ld rather be in NAFTA!!

It's got a big red dragon on it.

steveh: ".... red dragon"

With big white spots ?

er....

WHAT?

[grinning]

re (Conrad):

“Tony, even within the "European Superstate" (as you and other archconservatives and Luddites like to call it), Westminster will ALWAYS retain a certain amount of power".

REPLY: How much, though? Huge arrays of powers have already been transferred to the European institutions, and other national powers are being devolved to unelected regional assemblies and to the Scottish Parliament and Welsh and Northern Ireland assemblies. How can we be sure that Westminster will retain *any* power? After all, 'The Acquis' just keeps on growing and growing.

P.S. Verbally abusing your opponent is universally acknowledged as a sign of a weak argument, not a strong one

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re (Conrad):

“Never heard of a thing called "subsidiarity"? It's the principle whereby the EU does not take action (except in the areas which fall within its exclusive competence) unless it is more effective than action taken at national, regional or local level”.

REPLY: Surprising as it may seem, yes I have heard of ‘subsidiarity’. Moreover, I know its true origin. As an Internet search would inform you - or any authoritative work on the history of the Roman Catholic Church - it was the *Vatican* which first coined the term ‘subsidiarity’. It did so to give an accurate term to its style of rule. ‘Subsidiarity’ meant that the centre, viz. the Vatican in this case, assumed to itself powers over everything it wanted to have power over. The local bishops and priests were only left with authority over the ‘scraps’ that the Pope and his Cardinals did not want to bother with - mainly local administrative matters.

This is precisely the model the European Union has adopted - i.e. assuming ever greater power to itself, leaving just scraps to be dealt with - and not by the nations, whose powers are being stripped, but by the regional authorities the E.U. is setting up all over the E.U.

Subsidiarity will eventually mean:
* strong European institutions at the centre,
* subservient regional authorities, and
* no nations.

That is the avowed aim of many of those behind the ‘European project’

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re (Conrad):

“I myself am all for the transfer of the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence to Europe. Why? Because this would increase the economic, military and political clout of the EU on the world stage".

REPLY: Many of us do not want these things transferred to Europe, partly for the very reason you give. We do not necessarily want to be part of a project with ‘increased military and political clout’. Neither did most of the nations in the Soviet Union or the Yugoslav Federation, for that matter. We want a set of armed forces that can protect our independence, territorial integrity and way of life, rather than get overstretched all over the world trying sort out (not always very successfully these days) the messes that other countries get into.

I would also point out that supranational armed forces tend to be highly ineffective - look at the sorry record of United Nations forces to date

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re (Conrad):

“Let's be honest for a sec: nowadays nobody takes us seriously anymore. Okay, we're in the G7 and the UN Security Council, but that's about it. Tony, do you really think that the White House thinks we are important ? Absolutely not. We are just the legitimation for George W Bush to show the rest of the world he does not act unilaterally. I feel we are taken advantage of".

REPLY: I concede that you have a point in relation to our support for George Bush’s war on Iraq. But, really, no-one takes us seriously any more? - the fourth largest economy in the world?

The United Kingdom gets to have a direct say at G7 summit meetings. Germany doesn’t any more – they’re now represented by the E.U. Neither does France for the same reason. But our Gordon Brown still sits at the top table.

I read a report on Norway over the weekend that said that it “punched above its weight” on the international scene. It is involved in arbitrating on several international disputes - and of course hosts the Nobel Peace Prize awards. It is independnet and respected internationally, despite only having 4 million people. The same might be said of little Switzerland – only 4 million people but the centre of the International Red Cross and an important United Nations centre.

As I have said before, to succeed in the world, a people needs to be hard-working, innovative, inventive, entrepreneurial and free to think and speak as they find. Just as you, Conrad, probably prefer to live in your own flat or house rather than in a commune of 25 families run by a Committee and all sharing the same bank account, so I prefer to live in an independent country on good terms with its neighbours. Another 2,650,767 Brits voted for just this on 10 June 2004 by supporting UKIP in the recent election, and another million-plus voted for other parties which believed the same.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
re (Conrad):

“Think about it. We simply won't be able to keep our heads above water anymore when in 100 year's time the world will be reduced to 8-odd "power blocks" with at least 1/2 billion inhabitants each”

REPLY: You're making an awful lot of assumptions there about the future

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re (Conrad):

“…we should try to have as many Britons as possible in European key positions. e.g. a Briton as European Minister for Foreign Affairs. This would be a lot better than having 25 different Ministers for the same thing and moreover we would have a lot more power than we have now".

REPLY: At present, Britain has two Euro Commissioners, Neil Kinnock (the man dedicated to eliminating corruption and fraud in the European Union (!)) and Christopher Patten. Soon we shall be down to one - and soon after that, maybe none at all

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re (Martin):

"One of the biggest obstacles to Britain playing a bigger role in European affairs is Britain's own making – the teaching of second languages in British schools is so appalling. The result is that very few Britons are qualifier to work in the European Civil Service due to lingusitic requirements".

REPLY: However, it remains a fact that English has now become the ‘lingua franca’ of the European Union. Out of all the leaders of the ten new entrant countries to the European Union, nearly all can speak good English, but almost none can speak good French.

You are right, though, about the lack of Britons in the European institutions. You would think that if we were really at ‘the centre of Europe’ or ‘the heart of Europe’, we would have our fair share of eurocrats, wouldn’t you?

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

re (Stan):

”I'd take a closer look at that 'rubber stamp' If I were you Tony. A couple of examples:

(1) In UK law it is illegal to sell draught beer in pubs by the litre. The directive 80/181/EEC, which UK law is supposed to implement, allows the pint for draught beer but does not ban the litre.

(2) The TSRGD contains numerous examples of road sign symbol specifications that fly in the face of the EU directive on units of measurement. Again the directive allows miles, yards, feet and inches on road signs but specifies the symbols that should be used so as not to conflict with international symbols for SI units, e.g. 'mile' not 'm' which is the internationally recognised symbol for the metre. TSRGD totally ignores all this.

Again that same directive allows Imperial units for UK and Ireland on road signs but doesn't ban metric.

As for those autocratic EU commissioners you talk about, far from imposing metric on the UK they don't care a fig as to whether Britain metricates or not, else why do you think that UK has been allowed to take so long to get where we are with it?"

REPLY: All that the United Kingdom is ever allowed by an E.U. Directive is limited time in which to comply with its provisions. That's the meaning of 'derogation'. The way in which honest British traders were forced under threat of criminal penalties, from 1 January 2000, to give up selling in pounds and ounces, and the coming banning order on even mentioning pounds and ounces on a shop display after 31 December 2009, come about because we are legally bound to comply with 80/181/EEC sooner or later. The current TSRGD is only in place by permission of the E.U., though A.R.M. will do its level best to help block permanently the wasteful and unnecessary plans to metricate Britain’s 2 million road signs with Imperial distances, dimensions or speed limits on them*.

I correct myself. Westminster is effectively Brussles’ rubber-stamp machine for the United Kingdom. Sometimes British M.P.s can delay, for a while, the moment when their rubber stamp becomes effective. It helps them think they are still important.


* P.S. I am already aware, Martin, that there are no distance, dimension or speed limit signs in your cul-de-sac

Tony: "Verbally abusing your opponent is universally acknowledged as a sign of a weak argument, not a strong one"

I don’t consider the words "archconservative" and "Luddite" as verbal abuse. If you experienced it that way, I apologise.

Tony: [everything you said]

I fully understand your position, but I don't share your opinion - which won't surprise anybody on this forum I suppose ;-).

Time will tell, Tony, time will tell.

I still want to know what's all this about a red dragon with big white spots?

(although I did find the posts above interesting to read, btw)

Steveh: "I still want to know what's all this about a red dragon with big white spots?"

It was just a stupid remark... There's nothing behind it really. :-)

Don't mess with the dragon, man!



(oh I see! you were referring to the affect that mind altering drugs might have!)

Tony Bennett wrote

<<
* P.S. I am already aware, Martin, that there are no distance, dimension or speed limit signs in your cul-de-sac
>>

In which case it will not cost anything to metricate the signs in our cul-de-sac as is the case with a significant proportion of the 2 million signs that you talk about.