@Dippenhall. I am bound to agree with you that the performance of the European Commission in general, the unaccountability of it, and as a result the way a lot of EC directives are drawn up, needs to be seriously overhauled.That much I've believed for years, and said so, and it was their misguided interventions into football under Mario Monti that made me realise it. I even wrote to the bugger to tell him so, but I don't remember getting any reply:-). However I generally strongly believe that if you want to reform the way an organisation works you have to be an active positive member, and not sulk on the sidelines or disrupt meetings when you don't get your way straight away.
I also think you should consider the way EU directives are implemented in this country. Have you not considered that it is the DWP who are partly at fault here. I've said it several times and will say it again, EU directives do not trump national law. The DWP could have taken its time to discuss the issues with the EC rather than putting together half baked local version.
Want evidence? Try this statement on consumer rights from the europa.eu site
"Whether you bought the goods in a shop or online, under EU rules you always have the right to a minimum two-year guarantee period at no cost.
This 2-year guarantee is only your minimum right and national rules in your country may give you extra protection. Remember that any deviation from EU rules must always be to the consumer's benefit."
Couldn't be more clear, could it? And could any reasonable person on CL not want such a rule to apply to their new vacuum cleaner, fridge, etc? And yet what do we have here from Which magazine?
"Many products, such as electrical goods, are sold with a manufacturer's guarantee (or warranty), often for a year."
Why has this EU directive not been implemented in the UK? And why are the Daily Mail and millions of people not hopping mad about it? What happened to the "meddling in laws and making silly rules" as @MrOneLung mentioned above, in this case, where actually the rule is patently good for consumers and works perfectly well across Europe for the same products, without companies going bust complying with it?
If the EU went back to the Common Market days whereby it was a trading collective, then most people would broadly support it.
It is because of their meddling in laws and making silly rules that is drving people to want to come out of it.
I
And an example would be ?
The size and shape of turnips
Is there any evidence for that or is it a joke? I thought the limits on shapes and sizes of vegetables were brought in by supermarkets to please customers who value appearance over taste, so I am interested if there was an EU origin to this daft practice.
You tell me? If it isn`t UKIP then it must be one of the others lol. To be honest with you I am not interested in which party you put your trust. It`s your choice. Just leave it now eh?
that is a very strange response. do you understand the concept of discussion and debate? where people put forward different views and thoughts and we all listen, contribute and learn. your approach seems to be putting forward your view then get angry with anyone who disagrees. do you ever wonder if your view might be wrong from time to time? i do, that is how i learn and understand new things.
you mention british values. my guess is that your interpretation of that is different to mine. almost certainly mine are not the same as ukip. mine are based around tolerance regardless of colour, creed, religion, gender or anything else, caring for your neighbour, diplomacy, looking out for the weak and down trodden, using imagination and invention for the good of all. what's yours?
henry, I think your values are fine and I agree with them. Whilst I can't say what Nigel Farage would say, I don't see why he would disagree. You can hold these values and still want to limit immigration, can't you ?
I agree with your views, but if The Valley was a 27,000 sell out at the next game, I don't think Charlton should let in another couple of thousand, whatever their colour, creed, religion, or gender they are.
If you think letting in more people is detrimental to the people in there, then you shouldn't do it and you certainly shouldn't continue to do it, with no possible prospect of ever stopping more people entering.
But if they were paying customers and extra seats were built what is the problem?
Where will the new seats be built, will it affect the view, what if there aren't any stewards or car parking spaces for the extra people, perhaps there isn't enough paper for the extra programmes and what happens when those 2,000 have kids - should we build more seats again?
Imo if it benefited the club in terms of additional income then the answer is yes. Essentially this is the problem. In any other walk of life would a company turn away customers? If the problem is limited capacity, then capacity is created.
England is already the 5th most densely populated country in the world, we don't have an unlimited amount of land to build more houses, roads, schools, hospitals etc. Our countryside is rapidly diminishing. We cannot continue to increase our population at the current rate (it has gone up by a fifth since 1950).
If the EU went back to the Common Market days whereby it was a trading collective, then most people would broadly support it. It is because of their meddling in laws and making silly rules that is drving people to want to come out of it.
I
And an example would be ?
The size and shape of turnips
Is there any evidence for that or is it a joke? I thought the limits on shapes and sizes of vegetables were brought in by supermarkets to please customers who value appearance over taste, so I am interested if there was an EU origin to this daft practice.
there was a directive about bananas that talked about unsightly and damaged bananas that was repealed due to concern that good bananas were being thrown away.
there is a directive that turnips should be called turnips and a swede called a swede, except in cornwall where a swede can be called a turnip.
If the EU went back to the Common Market days whereby it was a trading collective, then most people would broadly support it. It is because of their meddling in laws and making silly rules that is drving people to want to come out of it.
I
And an example would be ?
The size and shape of turnips
Is there any evidence for that or is it a joke? I thought the limits on shapes and sizes of vegetables were brought in by supermarkets to please customers who value appearance over taste, so I am interested if there was an EU origin to this daft practice.
there was a directive about bananas that talked about unsightly and damaged bananas that was repealed due to concern that good bananas were being thrown away.
there is a directive that turnips should be called turnips and a swede called a swede, except in cornwall where a swede can be called a turnip.
I didn't realise we'd moved on to Swedish values. :-)
If the EU went back to the Common Market days whereby it was a trading collective, then most people would broadly support it.
It is because of their meddling in laws and making silly rules that is drving people to want to come out of it.
I
And an example would be ?
Limiting the power of hairdryers and vacuum cleaners for a start.
Not a single vacuum cleaner ever manufactured by Dyson fails the new EU regs. Just proves that other manufacturers need to be more eco friendly. Much the same way we have had A rated washing machines for some years now.
For me this is a really interesting point. What exactly are British values? It's a topic that comes up endlessly yet there is no agreement on what is meant. Can anyone out there come up with a working definition?
A lighthearted post but pretty accurate in showing it is not a single defined attitude, more like hundreds of minor insights into how society has tried to maintain order in our daily lives with unwritten rules of behaviour. Bit like trying to define a religion, the more you try and unravel it the less there is to see.
1) Any problem can be overcome with enough tea or alcohol 2) A belief in the importance of queueing whenever possible 3) Discussing the weather is a useful conversation opener with someone you don't know well. 4) If there's an opportunity to take the piss out of friends or be facetious, then it will be taken
Why should Brussels dictate to me what type of vacuum cleaner or hair dryer I should buy? Imagine the outcry if they decided to limit the size of a car's engine and said you can't buy a 2 litre engine you can only buy a 1.2 litre engine.
Why should Brussels dictate to me what type of vacuum cleaner or hair dryer I should buy? Imagine the outcry if they decided to limit the size of a car's engine and said you can't buy a 2 litre engine you can only buy a 1.2 litre engine.
at last someone has actually come up with a problem that comes directly from the bastard EU.
there are carpets all over Britain with dog hair that you just can't get out with these wretched pussy vacuum cleaners
Chizz - If you want to know what Nigel Farage means by British Values, why not e-mail him and ask the question, you may get an answer.
I am sure lots of MP's have used words or phrases that cannot be quantified, a few come to mind, British Jobs for British People, The Big Society, Britishness, We Are All In It Together, ( I cannot remember John Majors one).
Quick straw poll for all sides in this debate. What figure of population do you consider constitutes "full" in relation to the 50,000 odd square miles available in England?
"Never full" is ok if that's what you think. (You are entitled to take account of all the infrastructure needed to support growing population including free education, health care, roads and railways, state benefits and retirement pensions, state funded civil service pensions and so on as well as quality of life for future generations. )
This is a question that rarely gets asked and hardly ever gets answered.
Nobody got an opinion on this then?
I have, though I'm not sure you'll like it. My answer is "it depends". If everyone is living in semi-detached suburbs or rural executive homes, then there are probably too many already. But if people live in cities with fairly dense populations, I'm fairly relaxed about it. London is bigger now than it was a century ago in terms of area built upon but had about the same population then. People lived in flats and rooms and had less space. It was far from ideal 100 years ago, but many of the things that people used to need space for have changed and there is no reason that they won't change more. An example is big fridges and cupboards. All the rage just a couple of years ago - nearly got one myself when we did the kitchen up about 6 years ago. However, the cost and sheer unpleasantness of the weekly shop with the improvement in convenience stores means we shop more often for less. This is a national trend - it is one of the underlying factors in the big supermarkets' poor performance. To take central Barcelona or Madrid as examples, these are places where quite a lot of people live, but in a very different way to how things operate in the suburbs. The density of even quite small towns in Spain is quite high. I believe the same is true in lots of other places - and not just in Europe, New York for example. Of course this can't work with people driving cars everywhere, it needs investment in public transport. The last 20 years investment in London transport has been at the forefront of the city growing. In 1984 when I lived in East London, it was pretty grim and pretty much no one wanted to live there. It was the development of jobs and transport links, especially on the Isle of Dogs, to get people there that made the difference. Now I fully understand why this is a thoroughly alienating experience as you live through it and I think it was traumatic for the Islanders who were there. The other point to make here is that the population reflects the jobs available. Most are in London or the SE. Jobs created elsewhere would require some sort of local incentives (which I believe the Scottish, Welsh and NI govts can give) or govt direction. There are loads of posts here and on the GE2015 thread complaining that not enough public jobs have been cut. So, cut them in the poorest areas of the UK and then wonder why they all come to London or the SE. Actions have consequences, even ones that look like quite simple. No govt has had any sort of policy to get work going in the poorer parts of the country probably since 1979. I work with quite a few people who are long term commuters, living weekends in the North, the West or Wales and living and working in London Mon-Fri. Why do you think there are hotels being built everywhere? (They're building one in Lewisham, that's not for tourists!) With the right investment, England could easily accomodate 70-80 million with barely a green field touched. I'd hold my breath about whether there will be the right investment, but I don't see it all as doom and gloom. My kids keep their music on a device smaller than a double CD. They look at my collection of old vinyl with bemusement. I need space because I have all this personal baggage. It doesn't mean it will be true in the future. And equally, the economy could collapse and people will emigrate in large numbers. And we'll start closing train lines again as they are not profitable. And then have to reopen them decades later when it swings round again. And the population will fall. It's never a good thing that the population falls - in modern times at least. Ireland's population is less than it was in the 1830s. Russia's population looked like collapsing precipitously in the years after the wall came down. Both of these were disasters - hence the population fell as people emigrated or died.
in a more serious point, UKIP's 'british values' spin/marketing is very clever
Obama's presidential campaign was built on the word 'hope.' Now he never did actually define 'hope,' he allowed 'ordinary americans' to define it for themselves. They were in essence agreeing with their own definition of hope and projecting that onto the Obama campaign.
UKIP are doing the exact same thing with 'british values'
in a more serious point, UKIP's 'british values' spin/marketing is very clever
Obama's presidential campaign was built on the word 'hope.' Now he never did actually define 'hope,' he allowed 'ordinary americans' to define it for themselves. They were in essence agreeing with their own definition of hope and projecting that onto the Obama campaign.
UKIP are doing the exact same thing with 'british values'
Indeed, they are also copying the Obama campaign by trying to bring in non-voters by trying to be anti-politics rather than win voters from the existing pool.
Chizz - If you want to know what Nigel Farage means by British Values, why not e-mail him and ask the question, you may get an answer.
I am sure lots of MP's have used words or phrases that cannot be quantified, a few come to mind, British Jobs for British People, The Big Society, Britishness, We Are All In It Together, ( I cannot remember John Majors one).
It would be much easier if he made it clear on UKIPs website, isn't that what it's there for?
Predictable hatchet job by the bbc, they're not a public service broadcaster anymore.
Anyone with half a brain cell will realise how biased that was.
So all the stats about his dreadful voting record and links to the far right are made up are they? The man's a scuzzbag and a hypocrite - happy to pilfer funds along with the rest of the UKIP MEPs and do nothing in return. Comes across like a twelve year old.
Predictable hatchet job by the bbc, they're not a public service broadcaster anymore.
Anyone with half a brain cell will realise how biased that was.
So all the stats about his dreadful voting record and links to the far right are made up are they? The man's a scuzzbag and a hypocrite - happy to pilfer funds along with the rest of the UKIP MEPs and do nothing in return. Comes across like a twelve year old.
You can believe whoever you want to. My issue is this character assassination we get every time he gets interviewed by the bbc. They would never ask the other leaders the sort of questions they ask him.
There is a 4th party emerging in British politics and they're doing everything they can to stop them. Of course there should be scrutiny of Ukip, as there should be with the other parties, but they've gone far beyond that. Whether you like them or not they are offering an alternative to the two party system we have now, yet we have Britain's biggest broadcaster trying to kill off any opportunity of a new major force emerging, which we all know will improve the democratic process.
Why should Brussels dictate to me what type of vacuum cleaner or hair dryer I should buy? Imagine the outcry if they decided to limit the size of a car's engine and said you can't buy a 2 litre engine you can only buy a 1.2 litre engine.
You presumably wear a seat belt ? Why should you ? Because it's good for you. In another way legislating that appliances work as efficiently as they can in terms of energy use is the same. It's good for you and me and our children and everyone wins. As for bent bananas. The bastards.
Predictable hatchet job by the bbc, not a public service broadcaster anymore.
Anyone with half a brain will realise how biased that was.
Of course it was biased. They never pretended it was anything other than a critical examination of the type of person he appears to be in reality rather than the "good old Nigel, what a guy!" persona he works so hard to portray.
If David Cameron was criticised by members of his party over national funds he diverted to prop up his own campaign or Ed Miliband took £4m+ in salary and expenses but had one of the worst voting records in parliament I'd expect him to be scrutinised as well.
Why not focus instead on the FACTS that were presented in the programme, like his appalling record on the fisheries committee he's supposed to sit on but doesn't turn up on from one year to the next despite his constant criticism of EU policy in that area.
You tell me? If it isn`t UKIP then it must be one of the others lol. To be honest with you I am not interested in which party you put your trust. It`s your choice. Just leave it now eh?
that is a very strange response. do you understand the concept of discussion and debate? where people put forward different views and thoughts and we all listen, contribute and learn. your approach seems to be putting forward your view then get angry with anyone who disagrees. do you ever wonder if your view might be wrong from time to time? i do, that is how i learn and understand new things.
you mention british values. my guess is that your interpretation of that is different to mine. almost certainly mine are not the same as ukip. mine are based around tolerance regardless of colour, creed, religion, gender or anything else, caring for your neighbour, diplomacy, looking out for the weak and down trodden, using imagination and invention for the good of all. what's yours?
henry, I think your values are fine and I agree with them. Whilst I can't say what Nigel Farage would say, I don't see why he would disagree. You can hold these values and still want to limit immigration, can't you ?
I agree with your views, but if The Valley was a 27,000 sell out at the next game, I don't think Charlton should let in another couple of thousand, whatever their colour, creed, religion, or gender they are.
If you think letting in more people is detrimental to the people in there, then you shouldn't do it and you certainly shouldn't continue to do it, with no possible prospect of ever stopping more people entering.
But if they were paying customers and extra seats were built what is the problem?
Where will the new seats be built, will it affect the view, what if there aren't any stewards or car parking spaces for the extra people, perhaps there isn't enough paper for the extra programmes and what happens when those 2,000 have kids - should we build more seats again?
Imo if it benefited the club in terms of additional income then the answer is yes. Essentially this is the problem. In any other walk of life would a company turn away customers? If the problem is limited capacity, then capacity is created.
England is already the 5th most densely populated country in the world, we don't have an unlimited amount of land to build more houses, roads, schools, hospitals etc. Our countryside is rapidly diminishing. We cannot continue to increase our population at the current rate (it has gone up by a fifth since 1950).
Or 51st most densely populated out of 211 in the real world. Take your pick! Sri Lanks, Phillipines, Japan, Burundi Belgium, India Netherlands, I mean I could go on.
South Korea, Taiwan, Palestine, Bangladesh................................
Why should Brussels dictate to me what type of vacuum cleaner or hair dryer I should buy? Imagine the outcry if they decided to limit the size of a car's engine and said you can't buy a 2 litre engine you can only buy a 1.2 litre engine.
You presumably wear a seat belt ? Why should you ? Because it's good for you. In another way legislating that appliances work as efficiently as they can in terms of energy use is the same. It's good for you and me and our children and everyone wins. As for bent bananas. The bastards.
If it takes twice as long to dry my hair or vacuum my floor it's not very helpful for me.
This may be a trivial example of EU bureaucracy but is symptomatic of all that many dislike about the EU.
I voted to join the Common Market, as it was known then, because I believed it was good for Britain's trade; the monster we now belong to is nothing like the trading group we joined originally.
Comments
I also think you should consider the way EU directives are implemented in this country. Have you not considered that it is the DWP who are partly at fault here. I've said it several times and will say it again, EU directives do not trump national law. The DWP could have taken its time to discuss the issues with the EC rather than putting together half baked local version.
Want evidence? Try this statement on consumer rights from the europa.eu site
"Whether you bought the goods in a shop or online, under EU rules you always have the right to a minimum two-year guarantee period at no cost.
This 2-year guarantee is only your minimum right and national rules in your country may give you extra protection. Remember that any deviation from EU rules must always be to the consumer's benefit."
Couldn't be more clear, could it? And could any reasonable person on CL not want such a rule to apply to their new vacuum cleaner, fridge, etc? And yet what do we have here from Which magazine?
"Many products, such as electrical goods, are sold with a manufacturer's guarantee (or warranty), often for a year."
Why has this EU directive not been implemented in the UK? And why are the Daily Mail and millions of people not hopping mad about it? What happened to the "meddling in laws and making silly rules" as @MrOneLung mentioned above, in this case, where actually the rule is patently good for consumers and works perfectly well across Europe for the same products, without companies going bust complying with it?
Cuts both ways, is my point in summary.
there is a directive that turnips should be called turnips and a swede called a swede, except in cornwall where a swede can be called a turnip.
I didn't realise we'd moved on to Swedish values. :-)
Democracy - Ukip are up for that
the rule of law - Ukip are up for that
individual liberty - Ukip are up for that as long as you're not foreign
mutual respect - See above
tolerance of those of different faiths and beliefs - hmmmm
there are carpets all over Britain with dog hair that you just can't get out with these wretched pussy vacuum cleaners
I am sure lots of MP's have used words or phrases that cannot be quantified, a few come to mind, British Jobs for British People, The Big Society, Britishness, We Are All In It Together, ( I cannot remember John Majors one).
The other point to make here is that the population reflects the jobs available. Most are in London or the SE. Jobs created elsewhere would require some sort of local incentives (which I believe the Scottish, Welsh and NI govts can give) or govt direction. There are loads of posts here and on the GE2015 thread complaining that not enough public jobs have been cut. So, cut them in the poorest areas of the UK and then wonder why they all come to London or the SE. Actions have consequences, even ones that look like quite simple. No govt has had any sort of policy to get work going in the poorer parts of the country probably since 1979. I work with quite a few people who are long term commuters, living weekends in the North, the West or Wales and living and working in London Mon-Fri. Why do you think there are hotels being built everywhere? (They're building one in Lewisham, that's not for tourists!)
With the right investment, England could easily accomodate 70-80 million with barely a green field touched. I'd hold my breath about whether there will be the right investment, but I don't see it all as doom and gloom. My kids keep their music on a device smaller than a double CD. They look at my collection of old vinyl with bemusement. I need space because I have all this personal baggage. It doesn't mean it will be true in the future.
And equally, the economy could collapse and people will emigrate in large numbers. And we'll start closing train lines again as they are not profitable. And then have to reopen them decades later when it swings round again. And the population will fall. It's never a good thing that the population falls - in modern times at least. Ireland's population is less than it was in the 1830s. Russia's population looked like collapsing precipitously in the years after the wall came down. Both of these were disasters - hence the population fell as people emigrated or died.
Obama's presidential campaign was built on the word 'hope.' Now he never did actually define 'hope,' he allowed 'ordinary americans' to define it for themselves. They were in essence agreeing with their own definition of hope and projecting that onto the Obama campaign.
UKIP are doing the exact same thing with 'british values'
Anyone with half a brain cell will realise how biased that was.
The man's a scuzzbag and a hypocrite - happy to pilfer funds along with the rest of the UKIP MEPs and do nothing in return. Comes across like a twelve year old.
I'll give it until Jan for the tensions between Farage and Carswell to spillover.
My issue is this character assassination we get every time he gets interviewed by the bbc. They would never ask the other leaders the sort of questions they ask him.
There is a 4th party emerging in British politics and they're doing everything they can to stop them.
Of course there should be scrutiny of Ukip, as there should be with the other parties, but they've gone far beyond that.
Whether you like them or not they are offering an alternative to the two party system we have now, yet we have Britain's biggest broadcaster trying to kill off any opportunity of a new major force emerging, which we all know will improve the democratic process.
If David Cameron was criticised by members of his party over national funds he diverted to prop up his own campaign or Ed Miliband took £4m+ in salary and expenses but had one of the worst voting records in parliament I'd expect him to be scrutinised as well.
Why not focus instead on the FACTS that were presented in the programme, like his appalling record on the fisheries committee he's supposed to sit on but doesn't turn up on from one year to the next despite his constant criticism of EU policy in that area.
Sri Lanks, Phillipines, Japan, Burundi Belgium, India Netherlands, I mean I could go on.
South Korea, Taiwan, Palestine, Bangladesh................................
This may be a trivial example of EU bureaucracy but is symptomatic of all that many dislike about the EU.
I voted to join the Common Market, as it was known then, because I believed it was good for Britain's trade; the monster we now belong to is nothing like the trading group we joined originally.