D
Germany wants the UK to remain in the EU
- Thread starter bernardgreen
- Start date
- Status
Sponsored Links
The UK, the Commonwealth, etc is not the same place it was 46 years ago.
One could go back further to show lots of other territorial evolutions, or look at other geo-political locations to show how territories evolve, sometimes for the better and some times for the worse.
But we still joined the EU in 1973, the fact that it has grown must be an advantage,that must have created more opportunities
D
durhamplumber
More control from Germany...It is cultural,they want to control the EU.
Sponsored Links
D
durhamplumber
Rofl...aint poor..aint old,,,and certainly do not fear anyone. You right with the dp bit tho!!
Explain how Germany Controls this Country ( this should be interesting )
We joined an economical union in 1973 which was good for trade. We are now subject to the rules and laws of the European Union,
In 1973 we did NOT sign up to being ruled by Europe
Are you just throwing out meaningless Brexer slogns?
Or do you think you actually mean something? What?
Commission Regulation (EC) No. 2257/94
replaced by Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) No 1333/2011 of 19 December 2011, marketing standards for bananas,
JohnD appears to live in a world where turning facts into myths is an acceptable way to ( unsucessfully ) avoid having to face the truth.
Bernard shouldn't read this, he would explode with confusion.
https://www.ft.com/content/ac04efc8-34c8-11e3-a13a-00144feab7de
"The confounding paradox of the EU is that those who champion the cause of an open, outward-looking continent must also carry the standard for greater interference in the affairs of member states. To liberalise, you must first regulate. All is explained in the (true) story of the European directive setting maximum noise levels for garden lawnmowers.
Britain, which is being dragged by the Conservatives towards the exit of the union, has never understood this. The late Margaret Thatcher was one of the principal architects of the single market. Her instinctive liberalism curdled when she belatedly realised it required lots of rules....
Mr Cameron should study the story of the lawnmower directive, told to me at the time by a minister in John Major’s Tory government. This was the early 1990s and the eurosceptics were gathering force to oppose Mr Major’s bid to ratify the Maastricht treaty.
As these sceptics, then a minority, now a majority among Tory MPs, searched for ammunition, it seemed even to some pro-European ministers that Brussels might have over-reached itself: a directive had been passed imposing an upper limit on the decibel level of household lawnmowers. If Britain had a written constitution it would include an inalienable right for every citizen to mow their treasured lawn each weekend without interference or restriction by any agent of the state. What better evidence could there be than the 1988 lawnmower directive of the ruthless drive by eurocrats to invade every nook and cranny of Britain’s national life? Caught off-guard, ministers demanded an investigation. How had it got through? Why had Britain failed to kick up a fuss?
Back came Whitehall officials with the story. Yes, there was indeed such a directive, they reported. No, Her Majesty’s Government had not opposed it. Worse, it had voted in favour of the regulation. Even worse, Britain had proposed the directive and subsequently steered its passage through the Council of Ministers!
There was a simple explanation. The Germans, it seemed, had set a national noise limit on lawnmowers to ensure the peace and quiet of that country’s good burghers during the summer cutting season. The problem – and was it coincidental? – was that this excluded imports of the noisier products of British-owned manufacturers. A level playing field within the single market demanded EU regulation that stopped Germany from unfairly locking out the competition. Sure enough, the new, Europe-wide, decibel ceiling put the British producers back in the game.
The first point to draw from this story is that EU regulation is not passed by the Brussels Commission. It requires the consent of governments, though, in the case of the single market, a qualified majority in the council will do.
The second is that while the eurocrats inevitably get the blame for so-called red tape, most of the impetus for regulation comes from business leaders and politicians who complain about it so loudly. This makes sense. For companies operating across national boundaries it is much easier to adjust to one set of harmonised regulations and standards than to adapt their operations to accommodate multiple sets of national rules. That, after all, was the organising argument for the single market.
The lawnmower directive was not a one-off. It has been replicated in almost every sector as Europe’s economy has integrated – championed by the national governments and businesses that assail the interference.
Even as he warns that Britain’s future membership of the union depends on rolling back the regulatory frontier, Mr Cameron wants the boundary rolled forward in sectors such as the creative industries and financial services, where Britain has a competitive advantage."
However, the Brexers have decided to throw away Britains ability to influence these regulations and to shape the market. But if we want to export to Europe, we will have to obey them. This is what in the looking-glass word of Brextremists, they call "taking back control."'
https://www.ft.com/content/ac04efc8-34c8-11e3-a13a-00144feab7de
"The confounding paradox of the EU is that those who champion the cause of an open, outward-looking continent must also carry the standard for greater interference in the affairs of member states. To liberalise, you must first regulate. All is explained in the (true) story of the European directive setting maximum noise levels for garden lawnmowers.
Britain, which is being dragged by the Conservatives towards the exit of the union, has never understood this. The late Margaret Thatcher was one of the principal architects of the single market. Her instinctive liberalism curdled when she belatedly realised it required lots of rules....
Mr Cameron should study the story of the lawnmower directive, told to me at the time by a minister in John Major’s Tory government. This was the early 1990s and the eurosceptics were gathering force to oppose Mr Major’s bid to ratify the Maastricht treaty.
As these sceptics, then a minority, now a majority among Tory MPs, searched for ammunition, it seemed even to some pro-European ministers that Brussels might have over-reached itself: a directive had been passed imposing an upper limit on the decibel level of household lawnmowers. If Britain had a written constitution it would include an inalienable right for every citizen to mow their treasured lawn each weekend without interference or restriction by any agent of the state. What better evidence could there be than the 1988 lawnmower directive of the ruthless drive by eurocrats to invade every nook and cranny of Britain’s national life? Caught off-guard, ministers demanded an investigation. How had it got through? Why had Britain failed to kick up a fuss?
Back came Whitehall officials with the story. Yes, there was indeed such a directive, they reported. No, Her Majesty’s Government had not opposed it. Worse, it had voted in favour of the regulation. Even worse, Britain had proposed the directive and subsequently steered its passage through the Council of Ministers!
There was a simple explanation. The Germans, it seemed, had set a national noise limit on lawnmowers to ensure the peace and quiet of that country’s good burghers during the summer cutting season. The problem – and was it coincidental? – was that this excluded imports of the noisier products of British-owned manufacturers. A level playing field within the single market demanded EU regulation that stopped Germany from unfairly locking out the competition. Sure enough, the new, Europe-wide, decibel ceiling put the British producers back in the game.
The first point to draw from this story is that EU regulation is not passed by the Brussels Commission. It requires the consent of governments, though, in the case of the single market, a qualified majority in the council will do.
The second is that while the eurocrats inevitably get the blame for so-called red tape, most of the impetus for regulation comes from business leaders and politicians who complain about it so loudly. This makes sense. For companies operating across national boundaries it is much easier to adjust to one set of harmonised regulations and standards than to adapt their operations to accommodate multiple sets of national rules. That, after all, was the organising argument for the single market.
The lawnmower directive was not a one-off. It has been replicated in almost every sector as Europe’s economy has integrated – championed by the national governments and businesses that assail the interference.
Even as he warns that Britain’s future membership of the union depends on rolling back the regulatory frontier, Mr Cameron wants the boundary rolled forward in sectors such as the creative industries and financial services, where Britain has a competitive advantage."
However, the Brexers have decided to throw away Britains ability to influence these regulations and to shape the market. But if we want to export to Europe, we will have to obey them. This is what in the looking-glass word of Brextremists, they call "taking back control."'
It seems that a country can use vetos and other instruments to influence the decisions that affect another country.
Maybe Germany has done this to make the other countries vote for new rules that have an adverse effect on the UK ( other countries )
Note the difference between EU regulations and a single market. ( commerce and industry can self regulate in a single market ),
EU regulation is not passed by the Brussels Commission. It requires the consent of governments
and
in the case of the single market, a qualified majority in the council will do.
How quaint that Bernard, in his comfortable world of Daily-Express myths, took care not to provide a link to support his false claim.
Here are a few:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall
Poor Bernard will especially hate having to quote any text, for example he wouldn't like to admit:
"The regulation applies to unripened green bananas, and thus to growers and wholesalers rather than retailers.[3] The main provisions of the regulation were that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not "affected by rotting", clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any foreign smell or taste.[1] The minimum size (with tolerances and exceptions) is a length of 14 cm and a thickness (grade) of 2.7 cm. It specifies minimum standards for specific quality classifications of bananas (Extra, Class I, Class II).[1] Only Extra class bananas have to comply fully with the shape specifications. Class II bananas, for instance are permitted to have "defects of shape"; Class I bananas are permitted only "slight defects of shape".[1][4]"
I wonder if Bernard thinks he can show us an example of a retailer being prosecuted for selling an excesively bendy banana?
I wonder if he can tell us what regulations controlled the specification of different grades of banana in the UK prior to the unified EU descriprion? It will be really funny if he can, because we will look at the wording and discover it is much the same.
Poor Bernard, living in his world of anti-EU propaganda and imaginary oppresion by evil foreigners.
Here are a few:
http://www.europarl.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/en/media/euromyths/bendybananas.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commission_Regulation_(EC)_No._2257/94
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...launches-the-vote-leave-battlebus-in-cornwall
Poor Bernard will especially hate having to quote any text, for example he wouldn't like to admit:
"The regulation applies to unripened green bananas, and thus to growers and wholesalers rather than retailers.[3] The main provisions of the regulation were that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not "affected by rotting", clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any foreign smell or taste.[1] The minimum size (with tolerances and exceptions) is a length of 14 cm and a thickness (grade) of 2.7 cm. It specifies minimum standards for specific quality classifications of bananas (Extra, Class I, Class II).[1] Only Extra class bananas have to comply fully with the shape specifications. Class II bananas, for instance are permitted to have "defects of shape"; Class I bananas are permitted only "slight defects of shape".[1][4]"
I wonder if Bernard thinks he can show us an example of a retailer being prosecuted for selling an excesively bendy banana?
I wonder if he can tell us what regulations controlled the specification of different grades of banana in the UK prior to the unified EU descriprion? It will be really funny if he can, because we will look at the wording and discover it is much the same.
Poor Bernard, living in his world of anti-EU propaganda and imaginary oppresion by evil foreigners.
- Status
Sponsored Links
Similar threads
