So! Was it a Myth?

[Alan Stubbs]

Did What? But they didn't..read on!! That 'story' is for the gullible or feable minded amongst us, now I know you are neither of these so how about putting your hand up and admitting you are wrong...go on you know it makes sense.

 

 

C'mon Rabbit, you really ought to give people the chance to wriggle and concede gracefully.

 

I recall being told by a poster on here that I am rabidly pro-Europe. Funny, I never realised that someone who's never met me can tell I froth at the mouth.

 

Stranger still, I didn't realise I even did - and nor did anyone else.

 

A great place this parallel universe must be, huh?

[chesters1]

have to break this gently to you KB........but you actually already are in the E.U....and have been since 1973.

What was a myth,was that the E.U imposed the rules regarding fruit etc. they were approached by the fruit industries themselves,and asked to regulate things for the industries own benefit.

Which they did.

The idea that the E.U imposed unasked for rules,was and is a myth.

 

err no it was the common market an open borders policy where trade was easier not a federal state insisting everyone followed german policies

the uk now has 70 to 80% of our laws foisted on us from the EU our crazy government is happy to impose them and no doubt is losing a great deal of trade and money doing so

 

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/law/hamlyn/european.htm

 

 

 

note :

"# Regulations: These are binding and directly applicable (meaning that they do not have to be implemented by any national legislation) to all member states. If there is a conflict between a regulation and an existing national law, the regulation prevails. "

 

so whether our laws are different the regulation is the "LAW"

Edited June 30, 2009 by chesters1

[kleinboet]

I would suggest that you both Google "EU plans for Great Britain" where ther are at least 10 pages of what the EU plans for Britain. When you read them - it could take you all day - come back to me and tell me that it is ALL rubbish and made up! There is simply too many to not be true!!

But, of course you won't, it would tarnish your outlook on the EU being the most important thing that we must do!! I would agree with that statement as it would mean the demise of the UK!

[captain cojones]

Sorry K.B, but your post,where you didnt even know that you were in the E.U,and had been since 1973,makes any further comment you make on the subject superfluous.

It is a subject,that you obviously know so little about,that debate would be pointless.

As Rabbit said........just admit it.........

[chesters1]

this is what was signed up for in 73 not a EU but a common market

 

"28. Quantitative restrictions on imports and all measures having equivalent effect shall be prohibited between Member States."

 

Article 29 EC states the same for exports. The first thing to note is that the prohibition is simply between member states of the European Community. One of the institutions' primary duties is the management of trade policy to third parties - other countries such as the United States, or China. For instance, the controversial Common Agricultural Policy is regulated under Title II EC, Article 34(1) authorising "compulsory coordination of national market organisations" with common European organisation. The second thing to note is that Article 30 sets out the exceptions to the prohibition on free movement of goods.

 

"30. The provisions of Articles 28 and 29 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, public policy or public security; the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants; the protection of national treasures possessing artistic, historic or archaeological value; or the protection of industrial and commercial property. Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States."

 

So governments of member states may still justify certain trade barriers when public morality, policy, security, health, culture or industrial and commercial property might be threatened by complete abolition. One recent example of this was that during the mad cow disease crisis in the United Kingdom, France erected a barrier to imports of British beef.[29]

 

 

no mention anywhere of the possibility a court in germany could demand a person in ENGLAND could be guilty of an offence that doesnt exist in UK law.

theres plenty of good laws implemented by the EU i'm not saying there isnt but that just means our government cant be arsed to implement them off its own back ,it has no reason to its the government and hence above the law and no need to look after its people who they are supposed to serve

Edited June 30, 2009 by chesters1

[Jim Roper]

OOOps

Edited June 30, 2009 by Jim Roper

[Jim Roper]

Look at the date KB the story is over a year old, surely when you could have had this information to hand to support your wobbly stance?

Which leads me to believe the whole thing is a load of old BS concocted bY the rumour mongers who delight in having a go at all things EU.

 

Strange that there were several stories on the TV news this morning about the directive being lifted. but no mention of it on any news website that I can find.

 

I expect this is a hoax:

http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/1246374122.4/

[kleinboet]

Take the P if you want to, this is too important, I know we have dealings with the EU - we are sort of an associate member - and that cost us our fishing grounds. The EU is running away with their own importance, read the reports from Google like I said. Some of the things they want to do is laughable read it and see! Answer me one question about the EU - why have the financial books not been audited for, well, let's say before I got back to England and that was in 1986!!!

[chesters1]

"Rules for bananas, mainly grown outside the EU, are not affected as they are covered by different legislation."

 

 

DOH!

[Alan Stubbs]

Take the P if you want to, this is too important, I know we have dealings with the EU - we are sort of an associate member - and that cost us our fishing grounds. The EU is running away with their own importance, read the reports from Google like I said. Some of the things they want to do is laughable read it and see! Answer me one question about the EU - why have the financial books not been audited for, well, let's say before I got back to England and that was in 1986!!!

 

 

Britain has been a full member of the EU since 1973 and this was ratified by public referendum in 1975. I know - I was in the UK and voted in it, quite apart from the numerous sources on the internet, encyclopaedias and history books which assert the same thing. Or have I imagine it all these years? Where did you get the idea that we "are sort of an associate member "? I've searched extensively to find corroboration of your assertion and found none.

 

Similarly, you are wrong about the lack of an audit of the EU books since pre-1986. As recently as 2006, "the European Court of Auditors refused to sign off the acconts as legal and reliable." source: http://www.eurofaq.freeuk.com/eurofaq/#300

That alone suggests that an audit is done, contrary to your assertions. I readily admit that their findings are a shameful reflection on the endemic corruption within the EU, but that isn't what you said. You said the books hadn't been audited since "before I got back to England and that was in 1986", which is demonstrably untrue.

 

Can I suggest with as much respect as I can muster, that you check the accuracy of what you purport as fact in future - or simply take Rabbit's advice?

Edited June 30, 2009 by Alan Stubbs