PDA

View Full Version : EU laws.A load of S**T


lasernigel
10th May 2005, 07:16
What a load of S**T (http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30000-13345687,00.html)Well I think I've heard it all now.No sooner has one stupid law been passsed up comes another.What is it about these bureaucrats in Brussels have they nothing better to do??

Caslance
10th May 2005, 07:28
Funny.... the article you've linked to does mention DEFRA (the old UK Min of Ag and Fish) but doesn't mention Brussels or the EU even once.

How very odd.....:hmm:

ATNotts
10th May 2005, 08:32
It's a shame that Eurosceptics have to quote falsehoods to get their point across.

There's nowt wrong with a lot of EU legislation, except that the UK Government (in the interests of b****y sovereignty) won't sign up to, and enforce many of them.

We (as EU citizens) are subjected to border controls when crossing EU frontiers - had we signed up to Schengen, we would be able to travel freely.

We are fleeced by the banks every time we travel to most EU countries because we have to change our currency, because the UK government won't join the EURO.

We run the risk of losing our vehicles because we have the audacity to go shopping in other EU states and bring the stuff back into UK because the UK Goverment hasn't got it's precious excise duty from us. Other Europeans don't suffer this problem.

We are subjected to ice-cold cheese in restaurants because the UK Goverment mis-interprets food hygeine regulations - you don't get cold cheese served up in French or German restaurants!

We have to work up to 20% longer per week, for fewer holidays and poorer welfare than most EU States because we have a whole ship load of opt-outs from the Social Chapter.

Yes there's poor legislation coming out of Brussels all the time - but that's true of the UK too - but the EU is not all bad as some sceptics would have you believe. Too much Torygraph, Mail and Sun reading and not enough objectivity is the problem.

Sedbergh
10th May 2005, 08:34
Lasernigel

Irrespective of your example, you've hit the nail on its unfortunate head

All these politicians and bureaucrats (both EU and UK) do not have anything better to do.

Making up these new rules & regs to make our lives miserable is their reason for exisiting

And why they pay themselves over-inflated salaries and perks out of our taxes.

With the UK and the EU we've got double trouble.

But we (sorry, one third of us) have just re-elected Teflon Tone and next stop the EU constitution! Doh!

lasernigel
10th May 2005, 10:59
Obviously Caslance and AT Notts are Europhiles.But it doesn't take much grey matter to see what Brussels has forced the UK to do.You can slate papers that are Eurosceptical down all you want but if you want to read comics all day do so.I prefer the Telegraph or Times so I do see both sides,however even the Times can see through the myth and fug that Brussels spews out.You only have to listen to what that idiot Wallstrom said the other day about the EU was responsible for the end of the cold war...absolute BO**OCKS.
Just look at this weeks Christopher Booker column on the EU's latest here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;sessionid=QUUWA3PFGS4ITQFIQMGSM5WAVCBQWJVC?xml=/news/2005/05/08/nbook08.xml&secureRefresh=true&_requestid=27218).If you think that's OK and should go ahead by all means jump ship and live across the channel.
Me I want the UK I was taught to respect as a kid,yes with it's faults but at least it's freedom.

tony draper
10th May 2005, 11:09
Try removing the word "laws" from the title, it offends some people and the resulting title would be more apt.
:rolleyes:

lexxity
10th May 2005, 11:11
LaserNigel is correct this is an EU rule, it comes from the same departement who also say that you cannot have a muck heap. If you do have one that is punishable by a custodial sentance. Too many euro-crats with too little to do. Time to get out of the mad house me thinks.

lasernigel
10th May 2005, 11:22
Thank you for your suggestion Mr D the deed is done.Sorry if I caused offence BTW.
Hope the EU drowns in it's own.

feet dry
10th May 2005, 11:32
Caslance and ATNotts,

One three letter group summing up all that is great and good with the European project

CAP

TURIN
10th May 2005, 13:14
ATNotts
HEAR,HEAR!

Pilots are generally protected from working excess hours and have laws to ensure minimum rest periods are achieved.

Not so for the rest of us great unwashed. The OPT OUT of the WTD is a joke and the EU should DEMAND that the British Government scrap the opt out and ensure mandatory rest periods for ALL.

How many pilots here are happy that the engineers/technicians working on their aircraft are allowed to work as long as they like with no rest?
S**T Happens!! Usually when people are tired/hungry. :mad:

lasernigel
I prefer the Telegraph or Times so I do see both sides
OH, PLEEEAASE!!!!:rolleyes:

Caslance
10th May 2005, 14:24
Obviously Caslance and AT Notts are EurophilesWhy do Europhobes automatically assume that anyone who is not rabidly "anti" something must, therefore be gushingly "pro" it, and vice-versa? :hmm:

Yes, the CAP was (and largely still is) a travesty. No argument there from me.

But the article still doesn't mention "Brussels", no matter how hard you may wish it to. :ooh:

ORAC
10th May 2005, 14:31
See this (http://www.defra.gov.uk/animalh/by-prods/DraftGuidance/ManureGuidancev3.pdf) Caslance. :hmm:

Caslance
10th May 2005, 14:35
And is that the article that lasernigel linked to in his original posting at the top of this thread, ORAC?

You know, the article that I just referred to? The Sky News story that doesn't mention Brussels or the EU at all?

No, ORAC. It isn't, is it?




:p

The SSK
10th May 2005, 15:16
Take the time to look up the facts and you will find this has nothing, absolutely nothing, to do with 'Brussels'.

It's the UK Government extending existing UK rules on waste management licencing to cover commercial stables.

Perhaps Lexxity will now point us to the 'Brussels' regulation that says 'you cannot have a muck heap'.

tony draper
10th May 2005, 15:26
Actually theres a bylaw in my town dating from 1472 stating that you cannot build a dunghill in front of your neigbours house.
:cool:

Flypuppy
10th May 2005, 18:44
Not really sure I understand the rant here. The article doesnt mention Brussels at all, doesn't even hint at it. Also within the article itself it says that permits will cost up to 500 and then further on a gentleman is quoted as saying it will cost him thousands. Maybe I am just having a blonde moment, but I don't quite follow the logic in that. Either it will cost a maximum of 500 quid or it wont :confused:

Another thing how can it be a stealth tax when a) it isn't very stealthy and b) buying a permit isn't a tax?

Anyway enjoy having a look through this Euromyths (http://www.cec.org.uk/press/myths/index.htm#S) I am sure it will get the Daily Mail readers frothing at the mouth (again).

Lon More
10th May 2005, 19:57
I am sure it will get the Daily Mail readers frothing at the mouth (again).
More likely The Screws of the World; "All the news that fits, we print"

These guys always seem to forget that they have elected representatives in the Europarliament who could have opposed any legislation.
Maybe the point of you only get the government you deserve is still valid

419
10th May 2005, 20:07
Actually theres a bylaw in my town dating from 1472 stating that you cannot build a dunghill in front of your neigbours house.

From what I've heard, there's certain areas in Newcastle where it would be hard to tell where the dunghill stops and the house starts:p

Unwell_Raptor
10th May 2005, 20:18
Quoting Christopher Booker on the EU is a bit like quoting Ian Paisley on the Vatican.

You already know the answer you are going to get.

Sedbergh
11th May 2005, 07:46
I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned the undesirable effects that EASA is likely to have on non-commercial aviation.

Or see the thread "Sally B grounded by (EU imposed) insurance costs" in the "Aviation History & Nostalgia" Forum.

Personally I maintain the view that we get enough regulatory manure from our own politicians
without having even more piled high & deep from Brussels

Send Clowns
11th May 2005, 11:07
Caslance and Flypuppy

Surely the Sky News article is not the target of the complaint. The EU directive itself is. That Sky do not attribute the law to EU over regulation is a different argument, and in fact suggests that the Murdoch press is not as rabidly anti-EU as some would suggest. In fact it is a result of EU regulation, as made clear in the article that ORAC refered to (it is expecially disingenuous of you, Caslance, in direct reply to ORAC's helpful post, to ignore what he had linked to). It is nuts to assume this is not an EU directive just because the article doesn't say that it is!

Flypup, what about all those things that we were assured would never happen, and either have been implemented or our self-important friends in Brussels are trying to implement? Assured by the type of Europhile who writes such websites? A classic case is the charter of fundamental rights, with as much legal force as the Beano. Would be enforceable under the Constitution.

Have you heard of a new type of horse that stops crapping after a year, or a new type of bureaucrat who stops charging for renewals? Either is equally likely in Blair's Britain. Otherwise, yes, it could cost him thousands, especially if he has more than one site, or needs to do some work to obtain the permit.

feet dry
11th May 2005, 11:26
Thanks Mr Clowns,

Got there before I could.

Anything DEFRA do is by definition inspired by EU directive

Send Clowns
11th May 2005, 11:41
By the way, just looked at the site, and many of the myths "exploded" are not at all. They just tell us the original intention of the legislation. The whole point of many of the news articles attacked is the unintended consequences of poorly-drafted legislation. We're getting familiar with that here in the UK now. I agree that some of the news articles are skewed to make the EU look worse, so they can be more easily attacked, but that does not make EU legislation harmless or the concerns "myths".

For example the ban on pints of shandy; the defence of the EU is that shandy can still be sold if made from draught beer. That still bans the sale of shandy in pints if it is not made from draught beer. Having worked in younger days behind bars at wedding receptions and company events where there may not be draught beer available, I could not now offer shandy at all, unless it was suppled pre-mixed.

Second example, vitamin supplements and herbal cures; many will, effectively, be banned, simply because of the expense of testing.

Third, VAT; while currently there is no pan-European tax, there would be under the constitution if the Commission decided, and some VAT consistency has already been pushed through (remember the shock shown by Labour at VAT on fuel? EU now says there has to be).

Fourth, double-decker buses; "Any new regulations will apply only to new buses and coaches and not to existing ones" says it all.

So a website of half-truths and wriggling. Sounds like the EU.

Caslance
11th May 2005, 13:21
Surely the Sky News article is not the target of the complaint.Really, Send Clowns? It's where the link in the original posting - the subject of the thread - pointed. And for all your bluster, it does not mention either Brussels or the EU. Does it?

Or perhaps I missed that bit - maybe you'd be kind enough to point it out to me?

As to your other "pearls of wisdom"...... :hmm:

Back to the Ignore list you go - you'll be happier there. :ok:

Send Clowns
11th May 2005, 18:44
Errrmmm, not sure how I can make this simpler, Caslance.

Sky was not the target of the complaint. The law that the Sky website reported was the target of the complaint. That law was the British interpretation of an EU directive, as ORAC made clear (I assume you did read the link before your petulant reply to him, did you? The fact it was not the same article is comically irrelevant, it relates to the same issue). The fact that the Sky article doesn't mention the EU is completely irrelevant to the argument, which is that this EU regulation is, to risk a pun, crap.

Is your defence of the EU so weak that when directives are found to violate all sense you have to resort to distraction onto one of the most trivial arguments I have ever seen posted on this site?

zed3
11th May 2005, 20:06
Democracy in the EU . OK , let's wait until the French (or Dutch) have voted on this convention thingy and rejected it . Then see what this 'democratic' federal behemoth does . My money is on - OK lets try again and get the right answer this time - HARRUMPH get out now whilst you all can , long live freedom , which is what millions died for 60 years ago . Unfortunately the truth will out only when it is too late , which is what these wiley politicos are counting on . The USSR collapsed years ago why is Europe so intent on setting up the same thing all over again ?
Rant over .

arcniz
11th May 2005, 20:42
A long-admired principle for use in developing political power is the making of prohibitions, followed by the imposition of charges, fees, etc. to be paid by those who seek favourable exception to the ban.

This provides supplemental taxation that can feed a growing bureaucracy. It also creates an identifiable population of petitioners with need for redress who can be expected to grease political pockets and subsidize agendas which mitigate their desperation.

The oldest idea of feudal authority was that individuals could have no rights other than those expressly granted by their lords and masters. A spate of revolutions over the years has turned that around to the prevailing contemporary approach where a lofty constitution or similar defines the social contract with an a priori grant of all rights not expressly prohibited, followed by a mile-long and ever-growing list of specificities that are.

feet dry
12th May 2005, 08:51
Zed3 you make a good and valid point, the evidence for which can be found in the Irish euro referendum......the first result was a no, the second vote was a yes. Breathtakingly cynical if you ask me.

lasernigel
12th May 2005, 12:56
Really, Send Clowns? It's where the link in the original posting - the subject of the thread - pointed. And for all your bluster, it does not mention either Brussels or the EU. Does it?

Caslance Sorry if I didn't babysit you and not post a link to a link to a link.
Thanks Send Clowns for helping with his search.Maybe he needs this sort of help to sort the wheat from the chaff.

Oh for the comment of OH PLEEEEEASE re reading the Times and Telegraph.If you'd bother to read them you would see that for the last 3 elections the Times has advised it's readers to vote Labour not as you'd obviously presumed the other way.

Unfortunately went A over T at work on Tues so haven't been ppruning as much as I'd like after posting a topic.

It doesn't take much grey matter to see what the EU is trying to do.We now have the situation that the 48 hr week will be implemented, yet another nail in the coffin for the UK.
I work more than 48 hrs some weeks and it's a necessity for the benefit not just of the company but for it's future.No I don't get paid overtime either,common sense must prevail not some prats in Brussels who by the way seem to give themselves pay rises and benefits far above what an average citizen would get.
If I offend people by pointing out the factual evidence and not the propoganda that flows out of Brussels at the taxpayers expense so be it.