I do enjoy all the "look at the latest mental legislation the EU has come up with now". Always focus on the negative, that way we can ignore all the good that has ever been done and worry how straight a banana is rather than the not so important stuff such as equal pay, the ability to live or work in Europe, freedom of travel between countries, the working time directive and free trade.
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
Hadn't thought about this.
Effectively all of these goods come with these "2 year warranties" knobheads on commission try and sell you whenever you buy something over a fiver at Argos or PC World.
This obviously pushes the price up, like you said.
So does the same principle apply to the toy safety directive or gas safety or electrical safety or consumer credit or the additional rights consumers get when they purchase over the internet as a few small examples where British consumers (and businesses btw) have benefited from EU membership?
Should we scrap that lot and just really on a leap of faith that those toys we buy the kids at Christmas are probably alright...but what they hey they were a few pence cheaper!
I think the point being made was that a lot of EU law is not "silly", bureaucracy but of much value to us as consumers.
Why is it, that when someone says some EU directives are silly and uneccessary, we have people saying, "should we scrap all their directives then, despite many of their directives being good ?"
Why always twisting things ? If I say I'm not happy with some of the laws of football because they are silly, like getting a yellow card for taking your shirt off, it doesn't mean we should scrap the lot does it ?
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
Hadn't thought about this.
Effectively all of these goods come with these "2 year warranties" knobheads on commission try and sell you whenever you buy something over a fiver at Argos or PC World.
This obviously pushes the price up, like you said.
So does the same principle apply to the toy safety directive or gas safety or electrical safety or consumer credit or the additional rights consumers get when they purchase over the internet as a few small examples where British consumers (and businesses btw) have benefited from EU membership?
Should we scrap that lot and just really on a leap of faith that those toys we buy the kids at Christmas are probably alright...but what they hey they were a few pence cheaper!
I think the point being made was that a lot of EU law is not "silly", bureaucracy but of much value to us as consumers.
Why is it, that when someone says some EU directives are silly and uneccessary, we have people saying, "should we scrap all their directives then, despite many of their directives being good ?"
Why always twisting things ? If I say I'm not happy with some of the laws of football because they are silly, like getting a yellow card for taking your shirt off, it doesn't mean we should scrap the lot does it ?
Yes, but UKIP are not arguing for us to alter the current 'directives' of the EU - they want full and unconditional withdrawal from the organisation.
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
Hadn't thought about this.
Effectively all of these goods come with these "2 year warranties" knobheads on commission try and sell you whenever you buy something over a fiver at Argos or PC World.
This obviously pushes the price up, like you said.
Silly story: bought a toaster from Argos once many years ago. I was asked if I wanted cover and thought, stupidly, that's a good idea, it will keep the dust off. It wasn't until we'd got part way through the process that I realised my mistake and bailed out. By my reckoning, if I'd bought insurance (because that's what the extra warranty products actually are) on all my appliances, I'd be paying out the equivalent of a new top of the range dishwasher every year. My last toaster was a British handmade retro-style Dualit. Expensive but easily repairable - probably the best thing I've ever bought. Still going strong ten years later.
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
Hadn't thought about this.
Effectively all of these goods come with these "2 year warranties" knobheads on commission try and sell you whenever you buy something over a fiver at Argos or PC World.
This obviously pushes the price up, like you said.
So does the same principle apply to the toy safety directive or gas safety or electrical safety or consumer credit or the additional rights consumers get when they purchase over the internet as a few small examples where British consumers (and businesses btw) have benefited from EU membership?
Should we scrap that lot and just really on a leap of faith that those toys we buy the kids at Christmas are probably alright...but what they hey they were a few pence cheaper!
I think the point being made was that a lot of EU law is not "silly", bureaucracy but of much value to us as consumers.
Why is it, that when someone says some EU directives are silly and uneccessary, we have people saying, "should we scrap all their directives then, despite many of their directives being good ?"
Why always twisting things ? If I say I'm not happy with some of the laws of football because they are silly, like getting a yellow card for taking your shirt off, it doesn't mean we should scrap the lot does it ?
Yes, but UKIP are not arguing for us to alter the current 'directives' of the EU - they want full and unconditional withdrawal from the organisation.
Precisely. If the EU became more flexible and let members have more of a say, then you wouldn't have as many people voting for UKIP. If Cameron really could negotiate a deal that is more acceptable to many Britains, then most people would be happy to stay in the EU.
My preferred option, would be just that. Every country within the EU has different needs and those countries needs should be considered. We shouldn't have a blanket approach, that is to the advantage of some countries and to the detriment of others. We need a more sensible approach for the benefit of all countries. I know that is extremely diificult, but can't the EU attempt to see if this can be achieved ?
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
@Jints How much do you want to bet that your assertion in the first sentence can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true? I propose Germany as the benchmark for your assertion, since its retail sector is the most comparable to that of the UK.
@Huskaris. Please don't automatically believe @Jints until he can actually prove that the same kettle costs more in Germany than it does in the UK.
n.b. One of the advantages of living on the west side of Prague is that every six months, I whizz over the border to shop in Germany, so I have a decent idea of pricing there for a whole range of consumer goods.
Looking forward to the answer…. as well as the answer to my earlier post about why this so called EU law hasn't actually been implemented in the UK. Anyone? @Covered End, for example? You were pretty insistent, (and rightly so) on getting answers from me on the population issue...
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................................
Sri Lanka has 836 people per square mile according to their 2012 census. England has well over a thousand. I've not bothered to look the others up but I think NL and Belgium are not far behind England.
Nevertheless an impressive array of countries that we could aspire to be like.
A guarantee is effectively insurance. Insurance always costs money because it places a risk on the insurer.
I don't think you can compare prices across different retail markets and suggest that any difference is due to the length of the guarantee. There are hundreds of different factors. The cost of electronic eqipment may well be lower in Germany than it is in the UK (I have no idea) but this could be due to competition, shipping costs, rents on shops, lots of different things. There is no equivalent to the EU Directive in China or in the US and prices are significantly less expensive in both countries but I doubt that the requirement of a guarantee in the EU is a particularly significant factor.
As it happens, I don't have any particular problem with most EU Directives. They are aimed at creating a single market in the EU, which is such an overwhelmingly advantage for the UK that concerns over specific directives are really very trivial in comparison.
Yes, but UKIP are not arguing for us to alter the current 'directives' of the EU - they want full and unconditional withdrawal from the organisation.
Sorry, but it won't work like that. EU Directives do not, by themselves, have any force in domestic law. Member states are, however, required to implement them by passsing their own laws (usually in the form of statutory instruments made by Ministers).
If we withdraw from the EU tomorrow, the vast majority of EU directives will remain in force through those statutory instruments (although those can of course be revoked or amended).
With respect, the point is Dipenhall, if it's in a manifesto then we must assume that UKIP would bring in legislation to fulfill their manifesto pledge, so at some point "British values" must be defined. You can't say in an act of parliament "We all know what it means" - it simply must be clarified it and it appears that even we, a small group of people, would not be able to come to agreement on what it means.
"Values" means principles or standards of behaviour, British means traditionally associated with Britain. Not sure what the problem is, apart from if you insist on a definition, it will be a mix and match list different for every citizen. UKIP have a policy that means all things to all men and can sort out what means most to most men afterwards. Surely clever politics.
If the character of the policies meet an individual's own perception of traditional British values the manifesto will have met UKIP's objectives. If UKIP have misjudged peoples instincts and not hit the spot on enough mix and match features they will fail.
Those who need a definition of British values probably lean towards the European concept of every aspect of daily life needing to conform to codified written regulations rather than following a principle.
You don't need an Act of Parliament to define the character of a particular piece of legislation, people will assess its character for themselves.
What I'm trying to get across (probably not very well) is if it's going to be in legislation it can't be "a mix and match list different for every citizen". It would be like changing the law on speeding to say "If you uphold British values you will not drive too fast", then when someone is stopped for doing 90 outside a school, they can say "by my definition I wasn't driving too fast (old chap)"!
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
Hadn't thought about this.
Effectively all of these goods come with these "2 year warranties" knobheads on commission try and sell you whenever you buy something over a fiver at Argos or PC World.
This obviously pushes the price up, like you said.
So does the same principle apply to the toy safety directive or gas safety or electrical safety or consumer credit or the additional rights consumers get when they purchase over the internet as a few small examples where British consumers (and businesses btw) have benefited from EU membership?
Should we scrap that lot and just really on a leap of faith that those toys we buy the kids at Christmas are probably alright...but what they hey they were a few pence cheaper!
I think the point being made was that a lot of EU law is not "silly", bureaucracy but of much value to us as consumers.
Why is it, that when someone says some EU directives are silly and uneccessary, we have people saying, "should we scrap all their directives then, despite many of their directives being good ?"
Why always twisting things ? If I say I'm not happy with some of the laws of football because they are silly, like getting a yellow card for taking your shirt off, it doesn't mean we should scrap the lot does it ?
Yes, but UKIP are not arguing for us to alter the current 'directives' of the EU - they want full and unconditional withdrawal from the organisation.
Precisely. If the EU became more flexible and let members have more of a say,
But member countries do have a say. A very big one. I mentioned previously that the only directive I know anything about is MiFID and for that the consultations between different countries went on seemingly endlessly. I doubt other directives are any different. They are NOT the random pronouncements of some EU deity. Of course, there needs to be a consensus, which can be very difficult as each country has its own agenda but they get there in the end. Personally I think it's just convenient for local countries' politicans to blame the EU to deflect criticism away from themselves. The UK population needs to be better informed about the processes within the EU. At the moment that is sadly lacking and lets hysterical nincompoops like Farage have a free reign.
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
@Jints How much do you want to bet that your assertion in the first sentence can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true? I propose Germany as the benchmark for your assertion, since its retail sector is the most comparable to that of the UK.
@Huskaris. Please don't automatically believe @Jints until he can actually prove that the same kettle costs more in Germany than it does in the UK.
n.b. One of the advantages of living on the west side of Prague is that every six months, I whizz over the border to shop in Germany, so I have a decent idea of pricing there for a whole range of consumer goods.
Looking forward to the answer…. as well as the answer to my earlier post about why this so called EU law hasn't actually been implemented in the UK. Anyone? @Covered End, for example? You were pretty insistent, (and rightly so) on getting answers from me on the population issue...
I can't help you on that one Prague and to be honest, guarantees on kettles or other electrical goods, are of no consequence to me. Whether the EU can be more flexible and whether Britain should stay in the EU has nothing to do with guarantees on electrical items. Sounds a bit rude, but no offence intended.
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
Hadn't thought about this.
Effectively all of these goods come with these "2 year warranties" knobheads on commission try and sell you whenever you buy something over a fiver at Argos or PC World.
This obviously pushes the price up, like you said.
So does the same principle apply to the toy safety directive or gas safety or electrical safety or consumer credit or the additional rights consumers get when they purchase over the internet as a few small examples where British consumers (and businesses btw) have benefited from EU membership?
Should we scrap that lot and just really on a leap of faith that those toys we buy the kids at Christmas are probably alright...but what they hey they were a few pence cheaper!
I think the point being made was that a lot of EU law is not "silly", bureaucracy but of much value to us as consumers.
Why is it, that when someone says some EU directives are silly and uneccessary, we have people saying, "should we scrap all their directives then, despite many of their directives being good ?"
Why always twisting things ? If I say I'm not happy with some of the laws of football because they are silly, like getting a yellow card for taking your shirt off, it doesn't mean we should scrap the lot does it ?
Yes, but UKIP are not arguing for us to alter the current 'directives' of the EU - they want full and unconditional withdrawal from the organisation.
Precisely. If the EU became more flexible and let members have more of a say,
But member countries do have a say. A very big one. I mentioned previously that the only directive I know anything about is MiFID and for that the consultations between different countries went on seemingly endlessly. I doubt other directives are any different. They are NOT the random pronouncements of some EU deity. Of course, there needs to be a consensus, which can be very difficult as each country has its own agenda but they get there in the end. Personally I think it's just convenient for local countries' politicans to blame the EU to deflect criticism away from themselves. The UK population needs to be better informed about the processes within the EU. At the moment that is sadly lacking and lets hysterical nincompoops like Farage have a free reign.
This post highlights exactly why we should not have a referendum on the EU imo. Very few of us know enough about the EU, how it operates and it's good and bad points to have an opinion based on fact. Most of what people think they know is based on media and political rhetoric. It's very dangerous ground.
I do enjoy all the "look at the latest mental legislation the EU has come up with now". Always focus on the negative, that way we can ignore all the good that has ever been done and worry how straight a banana is rather than the not so important stuff such as equal pay, the ability to live or work in Europe, freedom of travel between countries, the working time directive and free trade.
But what has the EU ever done for us?
I will give you free trade between the European Community. It almost sounds like some kind of Common Market.
Out of interest - did we not have equal pay/opportunites of our own, or was this from the EU?
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
@Jints How much do you want to bet that your assertion in the first sentence can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true? I propose Germany as the benchmark for your assertion, since its retail sector is the most comparable to that of the UK.
@Huskaris. Please don't automatically believe @Jints until he can actually prove that the same kettle costs more in Germany than it does in the UK.
n.b. One of the advantages of living on the west side of Prague is that every six months, I whizz over the border to shop in Germany, so I have a decent idea of pricing there for a whole range of consumer goods.
Looking forward to the answer…. as well as the answer to my earlier post about why this so called EU law hasn't actually been implemented in the UK. Anyone? @Covered End, for example? You were pretty insistent, (and rightly so) on getting answers from me on the population issue...
I can't help you on that one Prague and to be honest, guarantees on kettles or other electrical goods, are of no consequence to me. Whether the EU can be more flexible and whether Britain should stay in the EU has nothing to do with guarantees on electrical items. Sounds a bit rude, but no offence intended.
Fair enough. However would you not accept that I have demonstrated that the "power of Brussels bureaucrats" is bit less than the Daily Mail would have you believe? It seems that Brisih business can ignore them if they wish and nothing happens to them.
Colt you could have said the same about the Scots referendum but people did get engaged and the quality of debate was ok. We should not be afraid of a debate about Europe. If you are for or against, make your case but silly directives is not what it's all about.
Personally I dont know which way I would vote. Open to persuasion. But I do think the matter would benefit from being put to bed by a vote. You have a position in which we are tied into a form of political union that the people don't feel they ever voted for. That sort of resentment will never go away on it's own.
It is the 'silly' directives that people remember though. Why is that we can't criticise these directives because some of the other directives are ok?
How did our country manage before having all these foistered on us.
Just to be clear, I am not a UKIP supporter/voter, I was asked to comment on silly rules and gave some examples.
It isn't that we can't or shouldn't criticise them. It is more that they just aren't really that important. Rags such as the Daily Mail use them to try and highlight what a bunch of imbeciles are running our country from EU, yet they won't ever highlight any good that the EU has done. Personally I'd rather balanced reporting so I can make my own mind up but I know that is far too much to ask.
I do enjoy all the "look at the latest mental legislation the EU has come up with now". Always focus on the negative, that way we can ignore all the good that has ever been done and worry how straight a banana is rather than the not so important stuff such as equal pay, the ability to live or work in Europe, freedom of travel between countries, the working time directive and free trade.
But what has the EU ever done for us?
I will give you free trade between the European Community. It almost sounds like some kind of Common Market.
Out of interest - did we not have equal pay/opportunites of our own, or was this from the EU?
Equal Pay Act 1970 - A trigger cause for the introduction of the legislation was the 1968 Ford sewing machinists strike, though the legislation also paved the way for the UK's entry to the European Community, helping to bring it towards conformity with Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome, which says that 'each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.'
Prague it would appear that appliances sold in the UK do have a 2 year Guarantee just we have not been told about it, although according to this article the UK sale of goods act states 6 years.
EU law that gives consumers a two-year guarantee on goods is a well kept secret among retailers
Shoppers with faulty goods are being routinely denied repairs or replacements because they are not told about their rights under a guarantee scheme.
EU law creates a minimum period of two years in which a faulty product can be returned, and in England and Wales the figure is six years.
But many High Street stores are denying customers these rights, either because the staff don't know the law or because they think they can get away with it.
Generally, retailers hide behind the offer of a standard one-year guarantee and refuse to do anything when this lapses. Consumer experts say this means they are failing to abide by the law.
Most shoppers are in the dark about their rights and often simply throw out a faulty product.
At one time, household products were manufactured to last, but the industry can now make more money by churning out 'junk products' with a short lifespan.
Chris Warner, consumer lawyer at Which?, said: 'While it is true that the EU consumer rules mean stores should repair or replace an item that breaks inside two years, the Sale of Goods Act affords consumers protection up to six years from the date of purchase.'
He said the existence of one-year manufacturers' guarantees can confuse the situation. This is because stores wrongly deny any liability when these lapse.
'I don't think it's too cynical to say that retailers have been happy to let consumers think they have only a year's guarantee,' he added.
And you have the BBC trying to show that an imbecile is running UKIP. When they do that I can't help feeling it makes some people more inclined to "rebel".
The referendum genie is out of the bottle thanks to the Scots and it is the democratic way of settling this and getting the proper arguments across over a period of time. When most established political parties won't contemplate that you have to wonder why they are so afraid that they can't make the case for "better together" again.
A guarantee is effectively insurance. Insurance always costs money because it places a risk on the insurer.
I don't think you can compare prices across different retail markets and suggest that any difference is due to the length of the guarantee. There are hundreds of different factors. The cost of electronic eqipment may well be lower in Germany than it is in the UK (I have no idea) but this could be due to competition, shipping costs, rents on shops, lots of different things. There is no equivalent to the EU Directive in China or in the US and prices are significantly less expensive in both countries but I doubt that the requirement of a guarantee in the EU is a particularly significant factor.
As it happens, I don't have any particular problem with most EU Directives. They are aimed at creating a single market in the EU, which is such an overwhelmingly advantage for the UK that concerns over specific directives are really very trivial in comparison.
I'm not. You are. You claim that if the kettle in Currys has a two year guarantee then the price will go up. If the same kettle (and basically they usually are the same) is the same or cheaper in a similar German chain (or best of all in a chain belonging got the same company, not sure if I can think of one) then that suggest you are wrong. And I will tell you why you are wrong and why it is a perfectly sensible directive. Most electrical goods are far more reliable than they were 20 years ago -if the manufacturer chooses to make them so. When did your telly last "go on the blink"? On the other hand take washing machines. The local marketing director of Whirlpool admitted to me that their machines are built on the assumption of a trouble free three year life. Three bloody years!! of course most of them last longer, but on that basis a Whirlpool could easily develop a fault within two years. The EU directive protects people from cynical manufactures like Whirlpool and rewards those like Bosch who build things to last. Our governments should be getting behind these initiatives, not allowing people to ignore them.
Prague it would appear that appliances sold in the UK do have a 2 year Guarantee just we have not been told about it, although according to this article the UK sale of goods act states 6 years.
EU law that gives consumers a two-year guarantee on goods is a well kept secret among retailers
Shoppers with faulty goods are being routinely denied repairs or replacements because they are not told about their rights under a guarantee scheme.
EU law creates a minimum period of two years in which a faulty product can be returned, and in England and Wales the figure is six years.
But many High Street stores are denying customers these rights, either because the staff don't know the law or because they think they can get away with it.
Generally, retailers hide behind the offer of a standard one-year guarantee and refuse to do anything when this lapses. Consumer experts say this means they are failing to abide by the law.
Most shoppers are in the dark about their rights and often simply throw out a faulty product.
At one time, household products were manufactured to last, but the industry can now make more money by churning out 'junk products' with a short lifespan.
Chris Warner, consumer lawyer at Which?, said: 'While it is true that the EU consumer rules mean stores should repair or replace an item that breaks inside two years, the Sale of Goods Act affords consumers protection up to six years from the date of purchase.'
He said the existence of one-year manufacturers' guarantees can confuse the situation. This is because stores wrongly deny any liability when these lapse.
'I don't think it's too cynical to say that retailers have been happy to let consumers think they have only a year's guarantee,' he added.
Thanks for posting this. So once again I'm asking this…
If we want to believe that we should leave the EU because "Brussels bureaucrats are making our laws, and many of them are silly" then
- how come this particular law, which most people would see as a good thing, isn't being implemented? - why doesn't the Daily Mail, that guardian of consumer rights, make a big fuss about the guarantee rip-off?
A guarantee is effectively insurance. Insurance always costs money because it places a risk on the insurer.
I don't think you can compare prices across different retail markets and suggest that any difference is due to the length of the guarantee. There are hundreds of different factors. The cost of electronic eqipment may well be lower in Germany than it is in the UK (I have no idea) but this could be due to competition, shipping costs, rents on shops, lots of different things. There is no equivalent to the EU Directive in China or in the US and prices are significantly less expensive in both countries but I doubt that the requirement of a guarantee in the EU is a particularly significant factor.
As it happens, I don't have any particular problem with most EU Directives. They are aimed at creating a single market in the EU, which is such an overwhelmingly advantage for the UK that concerns over specific directives are really very trivial in comparison.
I'm not. You are. You claim that if the kettle in Currys has a two year guarantee then the price will go up.
It could be that prices do go up due to the guarantee but go up equally in different parts of the EU.
So a kettle in the UK would cost £30 but with the guarantee is now £40 (guessed numbers) and the equivalent is the same in German and elsewhere.
Not that it really matters.
Next week EU directive on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
You do realise that having a 2 year guarantee on a kettle makes that kettle more expensive don't you? How about letting consumers decide how much they want to pay for teh benefit of a guarantee?
Goods from John Lewis are more expensive than most but they do very well because they give out a 5 year guarantee on many of their products. When I buy a cheap product like a memory stick, I don't want a guarantee and I certainly don't want to pay for it.
@Jints How much do you want to bet that your assertion in the first sentence can be proved beyond reasonable doubt to be true? I propose Germany as the benchmark for your assertion, since its retail sector is the most comparable to that of the UK.
@Huskaris. Please don't automatically believe @Jints until he can actually prove that the same kettle costs more in Germany than it does in the UK.
n.b. One of the advantages of living on the west side of Prague is that every six months, I whizz over the border to shop in Germany, so I have a decent idea of pricing there for a whole range of consumer goods.
Looking forward to the answer…. as well as the answer to my earlier post about why this so called EU law hasn't actually been implemented in the UK. Anyone? @Covered End, for example? You were pretty insistent, (and rightly so) on getting answers from me on the population issue...
I can't help you on that one Prague and to be honest, guarantees on kettles or other electrical goods, are of no consequence to me. Whether the EU can be more flexible and whether Britain should stay in the EU has nothing to do with guarantees on electrical items. Sounds a bit rude, but no offence intended.
Fair enough. However would you not accept that I have demonstrated that the "power of Brussels bureaucrats" is bit less than the Daily Mail would have you believe? It seems that Brisih business can ignore them if they wish and nothing happens to them.
Possibly. The real issues for me are around housing, jobs, the NHS, schools etc.
For example, will my sons ever be able to "move out" and buy their own place ?
Will they still be living "at home", when they are 50 and I am 80 ?
I know that the lack of property is driving prices ever higher and I understand supply and demand. I also know the lack of property isn't solely down to us being in the EU. Furthermore, if we can build more properties than are required for people coming into the country and of course depending upon birth levels, then perhaps prices would level out or even fall.
However, this has not happened in the past and I can't see it happening in the future.
NB renting is also astronomical.
A 1 bed flat in Bromley now costs £200K minimum. If my sons could save £20K, they would need to borrow £180K minimum, without fees, so would possibly need to earn £45K pa. This doesn't look like happening anytime soon and all the time prices are going up and up. 10% last year in Bromley. Please take these figures as a guide and let's not quibble over minor figures.
Now I'm not saying this is all down to immigration levels, because obviously it isn't. But it is definitely being exacerbated by high levels of immigration. The majority of people moving into my road are every nationality except British. Now I'm not saying that is a bad thing and I am on very good terms with ALL my neighbours. I don't care what nationality they are, as long as they are decent folk (which they are). But I am simply pointing out, that the more people come to the UK, the higher property prices are likely to rise. This is not racist in any way shape or form (and I know no one has said that I am making racist comments).
We would have similar issues if all the Brits decided to return to Britain and I would be saying the same thing. It is about the amount of people and available resources, not their colour, creed or religion.
These are the sort of things that concern me. Not 1 or 2 year guarantees on electrical items.
I do think "british values" is a very wooly and deliberately undefined phrase as it will mean whatever the reader wants it to be.
For me it means democracy, tolerant and welcoming to new ideas and new people, world leading music, film, literature and fashion, humour, pubs, football and the seaside
It that what other people think? Is it what UKIP think? We don't know as they haven't said. Some would say it means bad food and binge drinking,
Just as Major's "Victorian values" were unclear. Pollution, poverty, exploitation and child prostitution with no votes for most man and all women. That is not what Major meant. He was trying to hint at hard work, family (while shagging one of his ministers), free market capitalism.
Comments
But what has the EU ever done for us?
Why always twisting things ? If I say I'm not happy with some of the laws of football because they are silly, like getting a yellow card for taking your shirt off, it doesn't mean we should scrap the lot does it ?
My last toaster was a British handmade retro-style Dualit. Expensive but easily repairable - probably the best thing I've ever bought. Still going strong ten years later.
If Cameron really could negotiate a deal that is more acceptable to many Britains, then most people would be happy to stay in the EU.
My preferred option, would be just that. Every country within the EU has different needs and those countries needs should be considered. We shouldn't have a blanket approach, that is to the advantage of some countries and to the detriment of others. We need a more sensible approach for the benefit of all countries. I know that is extremely diificult, but can't the EU attempt to see if this can be achieved ?
@Huskaris. Please don't automatically believe @Jints until he can actually prove that the same kettle costs more in Germany than it does in the UK.
n.b. One of the advantages of living on the west side of Prague is that every six months, I whizz over the border to shop in Germany, so I have a decent idea of pricing there for a whole range of consumer goods.
Looking forward to the answer…. as well as the answer to my earlier post about why this so called EU law hasn't actually been implemented in the UK. Anyone? @Covered End, for example? You were pretty insistent, (and rightly so) on getting answers from me on the population issue...
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................................
Sri Lanka has 836 people per square mile according to their 2012 census. England has well over a thousand. I've not bothered to look the others up but I think NL and Belgium are not far behind England.
Nevertheless an impressive array of countries that we could aspire to be like.
I don't think you can compare prices across different retail markets and suggest that any difference is due to the length of the guarantee. There are hundreds of different factors. The cost of electronic eqipment may well be lower in Germany than it is in the UK (I have no idea) but this could be due to competition, shipping costs, rents on shops, lots of different things. There is no equivalent to the EU Directive in China or in the US and prices are significantly less expensive in both countries but I doubt that the requirement of a guarantee in the EU is a particularly significant factor.
As it happens, I don't have any particular problem with most EU Directives. They are aimed at creating a single market in the EU, which is such an overwhelmingly advantage for the UK that concerns over specific directives are really very trivial in comparison.
If we withdraw from the EU tomorrow, the vast majority of EU directives will remain in force through those statutory instruments (although those can of course be revoked or amended).
Of course, there needs to be a consensus, which can be very difficult as each country has its own agenda but they get there in the end. Personally I think it's just convenient for local countries' politicans to blame the EU to deflect criticism away from themselves. The UK population needs to be better informed about the processes within the EU. At the moment that is sadly lacking and lets hysterical nincompoops like Farage have a free reign.
Whether the EU can be more flexible and whether Britain should stay in the EU has nothing to do with guarantees on electrical items. Sounds a bit rude, but no offence intended.
Why is that we can't criticise these directives because some of the other directives are ok?
How did our country manage before having all these foistered on us.
Just to be clear, I am not a UKIP supporter/voter, I was asked to comment on silly rules and gave some examples.
Out of interest - did we not have equal pay/opportunites of our own, or was this from the EU?
Personally I dont know which way I would vote. Open to persuasion. But I do think the matter would benefit from being put to bed by a vote. You have a position in which we are tied into a form of political union that the people don't feel they ever voted for. That sort of resentment will never go away on it's own.
EU law that gives consumers a two-year guarantee on goods is a well kept secret among retailers
Shoppers with faulty goods are being routinely denied repairs or replacements because they are not told about their rights under a guarantee scheme.
EU law creates a minimum period of two years in which a faulty product can be returned, and in England and Wales the figure is six years.
But many High Street stores are denying customers these rights, either because the staff don't know the law or because they think they can get away with it.
Generally, retailers hide behind the offer of a standard one-year guarantee and refuse to do anything when this lapses. Consumer experts say this means they are failing to abide by the law.
Most shoppers are in the dark about their rights and often simply throw out a faulty product.
At one time, household products were manufactured to last, but the industry can now make more money by churning out 'junk products' with a short lifespan.
Chris Warner, consumer lawyer at Which?, said: 'While it is true that the EU consumer rules mean stores should repair or replace an item that breaks inside two years, the Sale of Goods Act affords consumers protection up to six years from the date of purchase.'
He said the existence of one-year manufacturers' guarantees can confuse the situation. This is because stores wrongly deny any liability when these lapse.
'I don't think it's too cynical to say that retailers have been happy to let consumers think they have only a year's guarantee,' he added.
The referendum genie is out of the bottle thanks to the Scots and it is the democratic way of settling this and getting the proper arguments across over a period of time. When most established political parties won't contemplate that you have to wonder why they are so afraid that they can't make the case for "better together" again.
Thanks for posting this. So once again I'm asking this…
If we want to believe that we should leave the EU because "Brussels bureaucrats are making our laws, and many of them are silly" then
- how come this particular law, which most people would see as a good thing, isn't being implemented?
- why doesn't the Daily Mail, that guardian of consumer rights, make a big fuss about the guarantee rip-off?
So a kettle in the UK would cost £30 but with the guarantee is now £40 (guessed numbers) and the equivalent is the same in German and elsewhere.
Not that it really matters.
Next week EU directive on how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
For example, will my sons ever be able to "move out" and buy their own place ?
Will they still be living "at home", when they are 50 and I am 80 ?
I know that the lack of property is driving prices ever higher and I understand supply and demand.
I also know the lack of property isn't solely down to us being in the EU.
Furthermore, if we can build more properties than are required for people coming into the country and of course depending upon birth levels, then perhaps prices would level out or even fall.
However, this has not happened in the past and I can't see it happening in the future.
NB renting is also astronomical.
A 1 bed flat in Bromley now costs £200K minimum. If my sons could save £20K, they would need to borrow £180K minimum, without fees, so would possibly need to earn £45K pa. This doesn't look like happening anytime soon and all the time prices are going up and up. 10% last year in Bromley.
Please take these figures as a guide and let's not quibble over minor figures.
Now I'm not saying this is all down to immigration levels, because obviously it isn't.
But it is definitely being exacerbated by high levels of immigration.
The majority of people moving into my road are every nationality except British.
Now I'm not saying that is a bad thing and I am on very good terms with ALL my neighbours.
I don't care what nationality they are, as long as they are decent folk (which they are).
But I am simply pointing out, that the more people come to the UK, the higher property prices are likely to rise.
This is not racist in any way shape or form (and I know no one has said that I am making racist comments).
We would have similar issues if all the Brits decided to return to Britain and I would be saying the same thing.
It is about the amount of people and available resources, not their colour, creed or religion.
These are the sort of things that concern me. Not 1 or 2 year guarantees on electrical items.
For me it means democracy, tolerant and welcoming to new ideas and new people, world leading music, film, literature and fashion, humour, pubs, football and the seaside
It that what other people think? Is it what UKIP think? We don't know as they haven't said. Some would say it means bad food and binge drinking,
Just as Major's "Victorian values" were unclear. Pollution, poverty, exploitation and child prostitution with no votes for most man and all women. That is not what Major meant. He was trying to hint at hard work, family (while shagging one of his ministers), free market capitalism.