The very air we breathe. Now under EU jurisdiction.

[Agnostic Bear]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12296617


The UK government has just weeks to convince EU officials that it will meet European clean air standards in London, if it is to avoid a court case.

The European Commission is assessing UK data for London and will decide in a month's time whether to give the UK an extension until mid-June to comply.

Last June the Commission gave the UK a "final warning" over air pollution in Greater London and Gibraltar.

Tiny airborne particles, called PM10, are above EU limits in those two areas.

The UK is at stage two of a six-stage infringement process, EU Environment Commissioner Janez Potocnik told reporters in London on Thursday

Excellent. The thought police are starting to set up shop in the EU. This truly is fantastic news.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It doesn't suprise me in the slightest and sadly while the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and the Labour Party are in power it is only going to get worse and worse and will seep into more and more areas of government as the EU makes vast power grabs to complete the project which is essentially the creation of a centralised European superstate.

All we need to do is wake people up to what is happening, forget tribal voting habits and just simply vote for some common sense. Do we need the EU regulating the air? no. Do we want the EU to continuously fine us on issue after issue? no. For that matter, do we even want the EU? my guess is no so lets end this ridiculous thing once and for all.

The amazing thing is, the EU hasn't had its accounts signed off for the last 16 years (which in other words suggests serious fraud and corruption within the European Union with suspected billions upon billions missing from the books) - yet we'll still pay it, amazing.

[Chippiewill]

How is our air being made cleaner a bad thing exactly?

It's one thing to criticise the EU over stupid policies but this one actually makes sense.



-blah blah blah-
Could you please stop arguing for arguing's sake and actually come up with a good reason as to why our air quality should decrease.

[JoeyK.]

How is our air being made cleaner a bad thing exactly?

It's one thing to criticise the EU over stupid policies but this one actually makes sense.



Could you please stop arguing for arguing's sake and actually come up with a good reason as to why our air quality should decrease.


From what I understand, it's a matter of national sovereignty. Same reason why I dislike the UN.

[Chippiewill]

From what I understand, it's a matter of national sovereignty. Same reason why I dislike the UN.
Why is he posting something that's not news in a thread about news, all he's said is that they're unelected or whatever and it actually has nothing to do with a air pollution. He's complaining despite the fact that they're doing something right and at this point it's gone beyond disliking the EU because they have bad policies or are unelected or whatever it is, it's now at the point where he is complaining about the EU for the sake of complaining.

I don't really think it makes a difference if it's the EU or some badly conceived government department regulation air quality. At least it's being dealt with.


It doesn't suprise me in the slightest and sadly while the Liberal Democrats, Conservatives and the Labour Party are in power it is only going to get worse and worse and will seep into more and more areas of government as the EU makes vast power grabs to complete the project which is essentially the creation of a centralised European superstate.

All we need to do is wake people up to what is happening, forget tribal voting habits and just simply vote for some common sense. Do we need the EU regulating the air? no. Do we want the EU to continuously fine us on issue after issue? no. For that matter, do we even want the EU? my guess is no so lets end this ridiculous thing once and for all.

The amazing thing is, the EU hasn't had its accounts signed off for the last 16 years (which in other words suggests serious fraud and corruption within the European Union with suspected billions upon billions missing from the books) - yet we'll still pay it, amazing.
I have hi-lighted what is actually relevant and he hasn't even given a valid reason.

[JoeyK.]

Why is he posting something that's not news in a thread about news, all he's said is that they're unelected or whatever and it actually has nothing to do with a air pollution. He's complaining despite the fact that they're doing something right and at this point it's gone beyond disliking the EU because they have bad policies or are unelected or whatever it is, it's now at the point where he is complaining about the EU for the sake of complaining.

I don't really think it makes a difference if it's the EU or some badly conceived government department regulation air quality. At least it's being dealt with.


I have hi-lighted what is actually relevant and he hasn't even given a valid reason.

"The European Commission is assessing UK data for London and will decide in a month's time whether to give the UK an extension until mid-June to comply."

This line is news. That alone gives it justification to be in this section. I don't see why you're so happy to let an unelected board control how you live, though - even if it seems 'right' on the surface. Politics are hardly ever completely clear, and can reveal some quite disturbing things in terms of personal rights when you look into them. The Patriot Act in the US is a great example.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Why is he posting something that's not news in a thread about news, all he's said is that they're unelected or whatever and it actually has nothing to do with a air pollution. He's complaining despite the fact that they're doing something right and at this point it's gone beyond disliking the EU because they have bad policies or are unelected or whatever it is, it's now at the point where he is complaining about the EU for the sake of complaining.

I don't really think it makes a difference if it's the EU or some badly conceived government department regulation air quality. At least it's being dealt with.

I have hi-lighted what is actually relevant and he hasn't even given a valid reason.

Because you don't understand my stance - I don't oppose the European Union based upon its policies, I oppose it because it is unelected and we have never been told the truth and been given the chance to vote on what this really is. So i'm afraid the EU being unelected does have everything to do with it, as does cost as I pointed out that the EU hasn't had its accounts signed off for 16 years so I ask why would we even consider giving our money over to a bunch of conmen/crooks? If we were truly sovereign, we would be accountable to ourselves and not an unelected foreign power.

As for air quality - surely this is something we can carry out ourselves considering we have what is the oldest democracy on the planet? or are we incapable of this and so we need to have an army of unelected eurocrats (which we mainly fund) do it for us, set their own rules and then fine us if we don't follow their rules? This isn't on - families and business are struggling and this place still gets its piece of pie - wrong wrong wrong.

[AgnesIO]

Just out of interest, Mr Undertaker, do you really think leaving the EU would solve immigration problems? Do you really think are government would stop spending money on ridiculous things?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just out of interest, Mr Undertaker, do you really think leaving the EU would solve immigration problems? Do you really think are government would stop spending money on ridiculous things?

Well it would solve one half of the immigration problem as we've seen in recent years the influx from Eastern Europe which no elected government can change here unless we leave the European Union - so thats a fact, not an opinion hence why you see now when the government discusses immigration they say 'non-EU immigration' and the reason is because they have no control over EU immigration anymore. So yes, it would give us room to decide ourselves what immigration policy we have.

The spending part, no I can't gurantee that at all. But leaving the European Union would give us much more money to spend (and if we are going to waste money, i'd much rather waste it on the people here [afterall it is their money] rather than have them paying for new sewers in Budapest, subsidising French farmers and new roads in the Irish Republic).

The EU is the biggest problem this country has, once we get it off our backs - we can either go left or right and thats another debate, but at least then this country and its people can make the decision on how it wants to run itself. The whole point of the EU is to create a European superstate there's no doubt about it - either you're against it or you're not, let the people make the final call on the future of this country.

[AgnesIO]

Well it would solve one half of the immigration problem as we've seen in recent years the influx from Eastern Europe which no elected government can change here unless we leave the European Union - so thats a fact, not an opinion hence why you see now when the government discusses immigration they say 'non-EU immigration' and the reason is because they have no control over EU immigration anymore. So yes, it would give us room to decide ourselves what immigration policy we have.

The spending part, no I can't gurantee that at all. But leaving the European Union would give us much more money to spend (and if we are going to waste money, i'd much rather waste it on the people here [afterall it is their money] rather than have them paying for new sewers in Budapest, subsidising French farmers and new roads in the Irish Republic).

The EU is the biggest problem this country has, once we get it off our backs - we can either go left or right, but at least then it is the people deciding.

Do you dislike EVERYTHING about the EU?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Do you dislike EVERYTHING about the EU?

Yes, I can't honestly think of one thing I like about the EU - it is utterly incompetent so even when it appears to be making the 'right choices' it doesn't get them right at all and finally everything it does has no mandate from the people as it is unelected.

Even if it was competent and even if it did mostly do things I agree with I would still be against it as it is unelected and has no mandate.

[AgnesIO]

Yes, I can't honestly think of one thing I like about the EU - it is utterly incompetent so even when it appears to be making the 'right choices' it doesn't get them right at all and finally everything it does has no mandate from the people as it is unelected.

Even if it was competent and even if it did mostly do things I agree with I would still be against it as it is unelected and has no mandate.

You are against the easy travel across Europe too?

[-:Undertaker:-]

You are against the easy travel across Europe too?

I am yes, that doesn't really affect the UK as much as i'm aware as we are an island we usually have to show our passports anyway (as we do when we fly also). The easy travel across the European Union; it has caused problems mainly since the poorer countries of Eastern Europe joined such as Romania as when poorer people can move to a wealthier area they will do so, in mass droves. I don't blame the poor such as the Roma people but I blame the politicians who thought of this scheme in the first place.

One example of the Roma gangs; http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8226580.stm

I travelled to Turkey not long ago, and the waiting time at the airport was just the same as when I arrived in Spain via the air - there really is hardly any difference just that in Europe (when on the ground) the borders are often just open but then you still have police who pull people over entering the country as my geography teacher had when the German police pulled him over when he crossed the border.

And besides, I think the Germans have a right to patrol their own borders as do the French, Belgians and Spanish.

[cocaine]

How is our air being made cleaner a bad thing exactly?

It's one thing to criticise the EU over stupid policies but this one actually makes sense.

its not about policies but how the EU dictates our countrys business through an unelected body because of our participation in the european union. for example, did you know the majority of our laws are infact made in belgium? if these policies came from the UK government i'd be backing them because it shows concern for the welfare of the country - and i'm sure the EU have more important things to sort out like, oh i don't know, the failing economies of portugal, italy, greece and spain, rather than a bit of smog in the air which probably doesn't even affect us.

[Moh]

If the EU stopped sending immigrants to this country, maybe our population would be lower and our pollution would be less?

The only thing that I fear if we ever quit the EU is if scotland turn around and want to quit the UK and join the EU.

[Chippiewill]

Because you don't understand my stance - I don't oppose the European Union based upon its policies, I oppose it because it is unelected and we have never been told the truth and been given the chance to vote on what this really is. So i'm afraid the EU being unelected does have everything to do with it, as does cost as I pointed out that the EU hasn't had its accounts signed off for 16 years so I ask why would we even consider giving our money over to a bunch of conmen/crooks? If we were truly sovereign, we would be accountable to ourselves and not an unelected foreign power.
It is elected, unless of course you re referring to Van Rompuy, in which case I think you'll find he has basically no power and is elected just as much as David Cameron is.


As for air quality - surely this is something we can carry out ourselves considering we have what is the oldest democracy on the planet? or are we incapable of this and so we need to have an army of unelected eurocrats (which we mainly fund) do it for us, set their own rules and then fine us if we don't follow their rules? This isn't on - families and business are struggling and this place still gets its piece of pie - wrong wrong wrong.
Well clearly we can't, because there is a major air problem in parts of the UK and from what I can tell they're only ensuring that we meet the standard which we set our ourselves. It's like having a personal trainer encouraging you to do better.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It is elected, unless of course you re referring to Van Rompuy, in which case I think you'll find he has basically no power and is elected just as much as David Cameron is.

The European Union is not elected, the Council of Europe (Herman Van Rompuy) is not elected by the people and nor is the Commission (the government), the 'parliament' is elected by the peoples however it is not a real parliament as it has no real parliamentary powers hence why Mrs. Thatcher famously referred to it as an Assembly and not a parliament. David Cameron on the other hand is elected, his seat is elected by a portion of the electorate and his party is elected by the British people.

So i'm afraid, no - the European Union is not elected.


Well clearly we can't, because there is a major air problem in parts of the UK and from what I can tell they're only ensuring that we meet the standard which we set our ourselves. It's like having a personal trainer encouraging you to do better.

In that case the EU is doing a pretty piss poor job (as usual) if air quality is still not what they want it, and again I ask - who asked them to set our air quality standards? the people certainly didn't. It is similar to the climate change targets they set, utterly ridiculous and unachievable - made that way in order to fine us. If the EU was given the go-ahead by the people, and if the EU was elected then you may have a point as it would then have legitimacy - but it doesn't have that legitimacy.

[Grig]

You have just swerved on a massive debate on the EU, when the issue is also pollution in London. If the city of London cannot control their pollution problem, then let the EU do so because if not for pressure, pollution would get worse and at the end of the day these regulations do the country a favour in terms of environmental issues. That's not to say I'm all for the EU politically.

[-:Undertaker:-]

You have just swerved on a massive debate on the EU, when the issue is also pollution in London. If the city of London cannot control their pollution problem, then let the EU do so because if not for pressure, pollution would get worse and at the end of the day these regulations do the country a favour in terms of environmental issues. That's not to say I'm all for the EU politically.

The EU only does it because they now have that power, we've lost it. At least when you set your own policies you can decide what is right for you, rather than have a uniform policy placed on all of Europe which has differing climates and differing industries of which both affect air quality.

[GommeInc]

You are against the easy travel across Europe too?
That's debateable at the best of times. The only countries I know that are happy to let you go through their borders are the Netherlands, Germany, France and Belgium. If you're going through Italy to Spain, Italy to Slovenia or anywhere with mountains, you're stopped and have to be checked, or that's the understanding I get from border controls surrounding Italy at least. Maybe the EU just doubt Italy? :P

The EU don't need to bother intervening with the pollution levels in London. We're already reducing the lelves and we can't do it any faster, the EU are just pointlessly getting involved and getting some money out of, literally, nothing :P It's not our fault all our old buildings, roads and transport systems were kept intact when Germany went on a rampage and destroyed half of Europe allowing new, "economical" buildings to be built :P

*pushes the war button*

[Catzsy]

This is just silly. What the heck are they going to do if it is not up-to-standard fine the UK?

[AgnesIO]

The European Union is not elected, the Council of Europe (Herman Van Rompuy) is not elected by the people and nor is the Commission (the government), the 'parliament' is elected by the peoples however it is not a real parliament as it has no real parliamentary powers hence why Mrs. Thatcher famously referred to it as an Assembly and not a parliament. David Cameron on the other hand is elected, his seat is elected by a portion of the electorate and his party is elected by the British people.

So i'm afraid, no - the European Union is not elected.



In that case the EU is doing a pretty piss poor job (as usual) if air quality is still not what they want it, and again I ask - who asked them to set our air quality standards? the people certainly didn't. It is similar to the climate change targets they set, utterly ridiculous and unachievable - made that way in order to fine us. If the EU was given the go-ahead by the people, and if the EU was elected then you may have a point as it would then have legitimacy - but it doesn't have that legitimacy.

The people didn't ask for a 2.5% VAT increase. But it was still done. And that wasn't the EU's fault. Mind you, that was the Conservatives. IF ONLY UKIP WERE ACTUALLY LIKED!!!!11!!

[-:Undertaker:-]

The people didn't ask for a 2.5% VAT increase. But it was still done. And that wasn't the EU's fault. Mind you, that was the Conservatives. IF ONLY UKIP WERE ACTUALLY LIKED!!!!11!!

Well actually VAT is there thanks to the EU, its compulsory for EU members; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax#European_Union


The European Union Value Added Tax (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Value_Added_Tax) (EU VAT) is a value added tax encompassing member states in the European Union Value Added Tax Area (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_Value_Added_Tax_Area). Joining in this is compulsory for member states (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union_member_states) of the European Union (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union). As a consumption tax, the EU VAT taxes the consumption of goods and services in the EU VAT area. The EU VAT's key issue asks where the supply and consumption occurs thereby determining which member state will collect the VAT and which VAT rate will be charged.

There's been suspicion that the recent rise was part of the 'tax harmonisation' across the European Union.

So there you have it, another topic you had no idea the EU was behind; but you appear to enjoy it am I right? you enjoy being ripped off and having your taxes and life dictated to you by an unelected body which is grabbing more power for itself as the days pass?

If only you looked into things!!!!11!!

[AgnesIO]

Well actually VAT is there thanks to the EU, its compulsory for EU members; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_added_tax#European_Union



There's been suspicion that the recent rise was part of the 'tax harmonisation' across the European Union.

So there you have it, another topic you had no idea the EU was behind.

And you think they would remove it if we left the EU (and wouldn't add some ridiculous tax for walking?)

Stop fooling yourself.

[-:Undertaker:-]

And you think they would remove it if we left the EU (and wouldn't add some ridiculous tax for walking?)

Stop fooling yourself.

Depends who you vote in, but the point is that at least then we'd be able to make those choices ourselves and that when we voted at election time we would be able to change/go back on a policy if we so wished;- we can't do that with EU legislation and directives.

[AgnesIO]

Depends who you vote in, but the point is that at least then we'd be able to make those choices ourselves and that when we voted at election time we would be able to change/go back on a policy if we so wished;- we can't do that with EU legislation and directives.

Who do you think would HONESTLY save the general public money, and NOT lead the country to bankruptcy in the process.

Don't even try and tell me the anti everything europe party would.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Who do you think would HONESTLY save the general public money, and NOT lead the country to bankruptcy in the process.

Don't even try and tell me the anti everything europe party would.

I honestly think UKIP would save the public a great deal of money.

I can't gurantee it no, but they appear to have better spending plans than the three main parties who have led us to virtual bankruptcy - so give them a try, and if they fail then I wouldn't vote them again and we could then give somebody else a try. There's hardly any point in voting for the same failures time and time again expecting them to succeed when they have a track record of failing.

'Anti-Europe' - I think you mean anti-EU, Farage's wife herself is German. Remember Europe isn't the problem, the European Union is - we want to save Europe and its numerous cultures along with the ancient the European nation states while the EU wants to destroy them and create a new identity.

[Chippiewill]

so give them a try, and if they fail then I wouldn't vote them again and we could then give somebody else a try.
/facepalm

You're joking, right? Because if they fail there probably isn't a come back, the economy will be in tatters and unrecoverable. I say it's better to stick with a reliable party until the situation is slightly less dire.

[-:Undertaker:-]

/facepalm

You're joking, right? Because if they fail there probably isn't a come back, the economy will be in tatters and unrecoverable. I say it's better to stick with a reliable party until the situation is slightly less dire.

A reliable party? so is a reliable party one which has left a £7.9tn debt? is a reliable party a party which none of its top brass have any business experience what so ever? is a reliable party one which gives away £11bn a year in foreign aid whilst increasing taxes at home? is a reliable party a party which leaves a note on the desk saying 'no money left'? is a reliable party a party which wastes £1.3tn in its final months in office (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285745/Labours-1-3-TRILLION-spending-spree-How-millions-wasted.html) in order to spite the opposition party? is a reliable party a party which lets in 1m illegal immigrants under its watch? is a reliable party a party which promises a referendum then denies a referendum? I could go on but we'd be here some time.

UKIP on the other hand, its top brass do have business experience and are not career-politicians with no idea how the rest of us live.

[Chippiewill]

A reliable party? so is a reliable party one which has left a £7.9tn debt? is a reliable party a party which none of its top brass have any business experience what so ever? is a reliable party one which gives away £11bn a year in foreign aid whilst increasing taxes at home? is a reliable party a party which leaves a note on the desk saying 'no money left'? is a reliable party a party which wastes £1.3tn in its final months in office (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1285745/Labours-1-3-TRILLION-spending-spree-How-millions-wasted.html) in order to spite the opposition party? is a reliable party a party which lets in 1m illegal immigrants under its watch? is a reliable party a party which promises a referendum then denies a referendum? I could go on but we'd be here some time.

UKIP on the other hand, its top brass do have business experience and are not career-politicians with no idea how the rest of us live.

Reliable because you can rely on them not to completely screw it up. We have no prior experience of UKIP as of yet so it's best to wait for a better situation before giving them the helm.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Reliable because you can rely on them not to completely screw it up. We have no prior experience of UKIP as of yet so it's best to wait for a better situation before giving them the helm.

Not to completely screw it up? you don't think a £7.9tn debt is a total screw up? it's more than a screw up, its criminal.

[AgnesIO]

Not to completely screw it up? you don't think a £7.9tn debt is a total screw up? it's more than a screw up, its criminal.

Out of interest, when did we originally go in debt?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Out of interest, when did we originally go in debt?

Well the taxpayers alliance puts the debt at this;


http://www.iaza.com/work/110130C/iaza16337855898500.bmp


Now in reality I think most of the time we have been in debt, but that adds to the point - think of the wasted money we spend on interest payments that, if we had a surplus we could spend on education, roads, hospitals and so on.

[Chippiewill]

Not to completely screw it up? you don't think a £7.9tn debt is a total screw up? it's more than a screw up, its criminal.
It could be a whole lot worse and I'd like to point out that most of that was to prevent the recession from being so bad.

[-:Undertaker:-]

It could be a whole lot worse and I'd like to point out that most of that was to prevent the recession from being so bad.

Well thats nonsense because you do not spend to get out of debt, and also as the chart shows the idea that the debt arose from the recession is a myth - government has been overspending for a very very long time and one day this debt will have to be paid back.

We spend more on debt interest every year than we do on the entire education budget, just to service our debts.