Shopkeepers' fury as EU prepares to ban selling eggs by the dozen

[-:Undertaker:-]

whats the big problem? It all has to be packaged anyway, and it will just be done how chicken is. It gets weighed, and priced. If youre moaning about not being able to look and actually see how many eggs are in a box, or how many oranges you have. Its not really any different in the manufacturing process either, because it has to get the price labels printed on.

I think the UK is just being completely stubborn. We've said no to pretty much all other EU legislation, and i think youll find that most other countries accept all of the laws, and will have had to have changed from numbers of items to weight

The UK is being stubborn because it wants to decide its own laws?

I don't see what this has to do with the sovereignty of our great nation.

If indeed it will mean the change from 6 eggs to 6x40g eggs, then in what way is this affecting the sovereignty?

Because its being made by unelected foreigners who are not accountable to the electorate thus the opposite of the meaning of 'sovereignty'.

[kk.]

The UK is being stubborn because it wants to decide its own laws?

yes. we're part of the EU. Other countries would, im sure, like to decide their own laws, but because theyre in the EU, they adopt to the EU laws. If we want to manage ourselves, then we'll leave the EU.. but i dont think young people actually know what the EU does for us, they just see all these threads about how the EU are bad..

[-:Undertaker:-]

yes. we're part of the EU. Other countries would, im sure, like to decide their own laws, but because theyre in the EU, they adopt to the EU laws. If we want to manage ourselves, then we'll leave the EU.. but i dont think young people actually know what the EU does for us, they just see all these threads about how the EU are bad..

Then we should leave the European Union, or at least get the chance to have that say of which we have never been given. It has never been debated fully in the open, and when it is debated it is never truthfully debated from its supporters - Edward Heath took us into the EU knowing it is a federal project to create a European Superstate, most young, old, middle aged people I know would never vote for the aboliition of the United Kingdom in favour of a United States of Europe and I would hope that you are the same in that view.

It is very well blaming the papers, but people buy certain papers because they agree with them, hence why right wing papers (Telegraph, Mail, the Sun, Times) massively out sell left wing papers (Guardian & the Mirror) in this country.

[kk.]

Then we should leave the European Union, or at least get the chance to have that say of which we have never been given. It has never been debated, and when it is debated it is never truthfully from its supporters - Edward Heath took us into the EU knowing it is a federal project to create a European Superstate, most young, old, middle aged people I know would never vote for the aboliition of the United Kingdom in favour of a United States of Europe and I would hope that you are the same.

It is very well blaming the papers, but people buy certain papers because they agree with them, hence why right wing papers (Telegraph, Mail, the Sun, Times) massively out sell left wing papers (Guardian & the Mirror) in this country.

so we've never had that decision to leave the EU? ok.. cus there's no such party that offers this as an alternative. The people who want to, vote UKIP, or whoever, and those that dont, will vote other parties. I am the same, but I am all for the EU up until that point. It offers free trade, it offers freedom of immigration into and out of the country etc etc. Not many people will know the benefits of it, and just see the negatives as this is all thats reported..

Papers report on the bad things, and never the good things. The front page of yesterdays sunday telegraph was about this egg thing. I think youll find that ordinary people will be buying the sun, telegraph, mail, the star, and all the other bull crappers, who would probably support the withdraw from the EU. I bet not once have they wrote anything positive about why we should be in the EU.

[-:Undertaker:-]

so we've never had that decision to leave the EU? ok.. cus there's no such party that offers this as an alternative. The people who want to, vote UKIP, or whoever, and those that dont, will vote other parties. I am the same, but I am all for the EU up until that point. It offers free trade, it offers freedom of immigration into and out of the country etc etc. Not many people will know the benefits of it, and just see the negatives as this is all thats reported..

Papers report on the bad things, and never the good things. The front page of yesterdays sunday telegraph was about this egg thing. I think youll find that ordinary people will be buying the sun, telegraph, mail, the star, and all the other bull crappers, who would probably support the withdraw from the EU. I bet not once have they wrote anything positive about why we should be in the EU.

Hang on a second, you have just savaged the papers for not mentioning anything positive about the EU and at the start of your response you yourself put two what you think are 'positive points' about the European Union - so i'll explain why that are not positive lower down in the reply. The problem with parties such as UKIP is that we are locked in a FPTP voting system, in a PR voting system UKIP could easily abtain over 20% in a general election (they achieved 16.5% in the European Elections 2009 under a PR vote). You must ask yourself why the main parties will not change the voting system and why they will not allow a referendum on our EU membership - because it threatens them and their position of power.

You mention free trade, nobody is saying lets not trade with Europe. The EU is far from free trade anyway, we pay towards the EU regardless and the EU imposes tariffs on US goods in particular along with barring companies takeover bids for one another as it views it as 'unhealthy'. The EU also imposes thousands of new laws and regulations on business every year which costs business in the UK over £100 billion per year. The whole meaning of free trade is that you, as a country, can trade with whoever you wish and can trade for whatever price/whatever goods - free trade is not a trading bloc that attempts to rival the US in every shape and form.

Secondly you mention immigration, why is having no control over our immigration via the EU a good thing?

The public buy papers because they agree with them, I dont agree with the Guardian therefore I will not buy it. I am afraid the people have already made up their mind, and those who are in support for the fake reasons you have provided would soon change their mind if the truth was revealed to them that this is a federalist project. The papers have not commented on anything 'positive' the EU has done because there actually is nothing positive it has done, and anything you may agree with that it has done must always be followed by the following two questions which are; a) why should unelected foreigners be deciding UK law & b) why cant the democratic UK parliament pass this for a fraction of the price instead?

[alexxxxx]

You mention free trade, nobody is saying lets not trade with Europe. The EU is far from free trade anyway, we pay towards the EU regardless and the EU imposes tariffs on US goods in particular along with barring companies takeover bids for one another as it views it as 'unhealthy'. The EU also imposes thousands of new laws and regulations on business every year which costs business in the UK over £100 billion per year. The whole meaning of free trade is that you, as a country, can trade with whoever you wish and can trade for whatever price/whatever goods - free trade is not a trading bloc that attempts to rival the US in every shape and form.

you are - you are saying to say no to every regulation - which means that we wont get free trade with the eu we'll get tariff trade. the usa is one of the most protectionist countries in the world when it comes to trade. In an ideal world there would be no barriers but unfortunately there are. If you knew anything about economics you would learn that there are some really bad side-effects from having too many large companies running the market including price fixing and few reasons to cut costs and prices.

[kk.]

Hang on a second, you have just savaged the papers for not mentioning anything positive about the EU and at the start of your response you yourself put two what you think are 'positive points' about the European Union - so i'll explain why that are not positive lower down in the reply. The problem with parties such as UKIP is that we are locked in a FPTP voting system, in a PR voting system UKIP could easily abtain over 20% in a general election (they achieved 16.5% in the European Elections 2009 under a PR vote). You must ask yourself why the main parties will not change the voting system and why they will not allow a referendum on our EU membership - because it threatens them and their position of power.

Ive asked myself why the main parties will not change the voting system.. hmm, lets see, im pretty sure this was a huge deal. and that both labour and lib dems both agreed a change is necessary. yet its the conservatives in power. But youre saying that being a member of the EU threatens our position of power, so the argument cancels out..

You mention free trade, nobody is saying lets not trade with Europe. The EU is far from free trade anyway, we pay towards the EU regardless and the EU imposes tariffs on US goods in particular along with barring companies takeover bids for one another as it views it as 'unhealthy'. The EU also imposes thousands of new laws and regulations on business every year which costs business in the UK over £100 billion per year. The whole meaning of free trade is that you, as a country, can trade with whoever you wish and can trade for whatever price/whatever goods - free trade is not a trading bloc that attempts to rival the US in every shape and form.

Ok, so you still think that we'll be able to trade freely-ish, if we leave the EU? after we've basically said 'No.' to every law thats passed through the EU? im sorry but that is being quite naive. what do we give the EU? really? not much, but we get a lot back in terms of cheap products. Those laws affect every country in the EU and not just the UK. why dont you just campaign to get the EU shut down altogether? Free trade is the free movement of goods and services, without trade barriers. It means giving UK companies as well as overseas companies the chance of a bigger market, and a bigger demand.

Secondly you mention immigration, why is having no control over our immigration via the EU a good thing?

Because what most other people dont realise is that immigration doesnt just encompass people coming in, its people going out too. And if i remember rightly, a news article i read mentioned that the amount of people leaving our country to other countries in the EU was equal to the numbers coming in from the EU.

The public buy papers because they agree with them, I dont agree with the Guardian therefore I will not buy it. I am afraid the people have already made up their mind, and those who are in support for the fake reasons you have provided would soon change their mind if the truth was revealed to them that this is a federalist project. The papers have not commented on anything 'positive' the EU has done because there actually is nothing positive it has done, and anything you may agree with that it has done must always be followed by the following two questions which are; a) why should unelected foreigners be deciding UK law & b) why cant the democratic UK parliament pass this for a fraction of the price instead?

fake reasons? No, theyre not. Im sorry but the EU has done nothing for us? a quick google search of 'positive things the eu has done for us' brought up this first article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6455879.stm

[-:Undertaker:-]

you are - you are saying to say no to every regulation - which means that we wont get free trade with the eu we'll get tariff trade. the usa is one of the most protectionist countries in the world when it comes to trade. In an ideal world there would be no barriers but unfortunately there are. If you knew anything about economics you would learn that there are some really bad side-effects from having too many large companies running the market including price fixing and few reasons to cut costs and prices.

I am sorry but why should the European Union have any right to put harmful regulations on the United Kingdom? - well we know you agree with that completely, you'd have this country abolished tommorow if you had the chance without any of us having any say - you are an EU nationalist, you wish to impose your laws and your ways on the British people, the French people and people across Europe. In an ideal world we wouldnt have trade blocs competing against eachother, both trying to rival eachother in terms on world trade.

The EU has long wished to have the stranglehold over the United States, and its using trade as a weapon.

Ive asked myself why the main parties will not change the voting system.. hmm, lets see, im pretty sure this was a huge deal. and that both labour and lib dems both agreed a change is necessary. yet its the conservatives in power. But youre saying that being a member of the EU threatens our position of power, so the argument cancels out..

Whoever in is opposition out of these three will promise the world, once in power they will fold instantly on the subject. The Liberal Democrats folded on the PR issue following the election, Labour folded on both the EU issue and the PR system once gaining office in 1997. Infact its very likely Labour will campaign on all the things they [the Lib/Lab/Con] usually campaign on; tough on crime/lower taxes/proportional representation.. the list goes on and on and people still continue to fall for it.

I mean as though to prove me right even more so, the Conservatives the other day announced they are preparing to release thousands of criminals out of our prisons.. something they criticised Labour for when in office. No doubt Labour will now criticise the Conservatives for this in the coming months/years and thus the cycle goes on.

Ok, so you still think that we'll be able to trade freely-ish, if we leave the EU? after we've basically said 'No.' to every law thats passed through the EU? im sorry but that is being quite naive. what do we give the EU? really? not much, but we get a lot back in terms of cheap products. Those laws affect every country in the EU and not just the UK. why dont you just campaign to get the EU shut down altogether? Free trade is the free movement of goods and services, without trade barriers. It means giving UK companies as well as overseas companies the chance of a bigger market, and a bigger demand.

Yes, I am. The United States, China, Switzerland, Iceland, Mexico, India, Austrialia, New Zealand and hundreds of other countries all trade freely with one another and they are not part of the European Union. The cheap products line is also another lie, the EU actually pushes prices up as it pays farmers and so forth not to farm the land (check out the CAP policy) whilst at the same time forces British fishermen to throw back millions of dead fish into the ocean, whilst Spanish and Portugese fleets can come and fish instead - thus creating a shorter supply and pushing up the price.

The EU also costs a heck of a lot, it costs from the £10 billion to £16 billion figure in direct payments and costs business in the United Kingdom over £100 billion every year. If the EU was so good for business as you claim, why then are small business, fishermen, farmers and people in the City so against the European Union? - Nigel Farage had personal experience of the regulations over a decade or so ago when he left the city because it became embroiled in regulations and legislation spewing out of the EU. I read the other day that there is a new EU law every 3 minutes.

Because what most other people dont realise is that immigration doesnt just encompass people coming in, its people going out too. And if i remember rightly, a news article i read mentioned that the amount of people leaving our country to other countries in the EU was equal to the numbers coming in from the EU.

That is wrong. More people come into the United Kingdom than leave in terms fo emigration and immigration. To add to that note, thats not including the illegals who are here which now is around the one million mark (of course we dont know for sure, as they are here illegally). I am all for immigration myself and I dont believe in having a cap on immigration, but I do believe that the UK should be in control of its immigration policy and not the EU and that secondly we should have a tight system such as Austrialia which only allows those who we need into this country.

fake reasons? No, theyre not. Im sorry but the EU has done nothing for us? a quick google search of 'positive things the eu has done for us' brought up this first article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6455879.stm

That is absolute nonsense. Name just one of them and I can give the counter argument which shows the EU has actually done the opposite. Air travel for example, that article states it has become cheaper get doesnt reconisge the fact that the EU has put carbon regulation on airline industry which costs money and is passed to the consumer, not to mention the fact that to fund itself the EU has come out of your taxes so at the end of the day, you end up paying more rather than less.

The BBC is also funded by the European Union you'll be interested to hear.

[kk.]

Whoever in is opposition out of these three will promise the world, once in power they will fold instantly on the subject. The Liberal Democrats folded on the PR issue following the election, Labour folded on both the EU issue and the PR system once gaining office in 1997. Infact its very likely Labour will campaign on all the things they [the Lib/Lab/Con] usually campaign on; tough on crime/lower taxes/proportional representation.. the list goes on and on and people still continue to fall for it.

i do believe that come the next election, it will definitely be changed. whether its PR or not, but i do believe it will be a focal point both lab/lib policies

Yes, I am. The United States, China, Switzerland, Iceland, Mexico, India, Austrialia, New Zealand and hundreds of other countries all trade freely with one another and they are not part of the European Union. The cheap products line is also another lie, the EU actually pushes prices up as it pays farmers and so forth not to farm the land (check out the CAP policy) whilst at the same time forces British fishermen to throw back millions of dead fish into the ocean, whilst Spanish and Portugese fleets can come and fish instead - thus creating a shorter supply and pushing up the price.

Switzerland and the EU have no choice. Theyre in the middle, and its easier to go through them, than around them. as for other barriers:

If the goods originate from countries inside the European Union (EU), no duty is payable.

If the goods originate from countries outside the EU, but duty has already been paid on them in another EU country before they reach you, no duty is payable.

If the goods originate from outside the EU and no duty has been paid, you need to calculate the value of the goods. There are six calculation methods prescribed. If method one is not possible, you should move on to method two, and if that fails use method three, until you arrive at a value. Find out how to calculate import duty on the HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) website - Opens in a new window.

As for farmers, the british government also has this policy to pay farmers not to farm land, so dont bother going down that route.

The EU also costs a heck of a lot, it costs from the £10 billion to £16 billion figure in direct payments and costs business in the United Kingdom over £100 billion every year. If the EU was so good for business as you claim, why then are small business, fishermen, farmers and people in the City so against the European Union? - Nigel Farage had personal experience of the regulations over a decade or so ago when he left the city because it became embroiled in regulations and legislation spewing out of the EU. I read the other day that there is a new EU law every 3 minutes.

Its good for us, the consumers, and not the necessarily the businesses.. the ones that dont import, that is..

That is wrong. More people come into the United Kingdom than leave in terms fo emigration and immigration. To add to that note, thats not including the illegals who are here which now is around the one million mark (of course we dont know for sure, as they are here illegally). I am all for immigration myself and I dont believe in having a cap on immigration, but I do believe that the UK should be in control of its immigration policy and not the EU and that secondly we should have a tight system such as Austrialia which only allows those who we need into this country.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mig0510.pdf - page 7, long term migration. I agree with the last point, where we should have an australian type system. (tbh, i thought the UK do control international immigration, just not EU..)

That is absolute nonsense. Name just one of them and I can give the counter argument which shows the EU has actually done the opposite. Air travel for example, that article states it has become cheaper get doesnt reconisge the fact that the EU has put carbon regulation on airline industry which costs money and is passed to the consumer, not to mention the fact that to fund itself the EU has come out of your taxes so at the end of the day, you end up paying more rather than less.

'FOOD LABELLING'

The BBC is also funded by the European Union you'll be interested to hear.

not really, why is that a problem, anyway. Next youre gonna be saying that whichever government brought in the BBC (i think labour), BBC have a more favoured opinion of them. The BBC are neutral.

[-:Undertaker:-]

i do believe that come the next election, it will definitely be changed. whether its PR or not, but i do believe it will be a focal point both lab/lib policies

Why would you trust Labour again to change the voting system when they promised the exact same in 1997 and went back on it? - if i'm honest, if you and others are not prepared to think with your head and ignore the public relations stunts from the main parties then you all deserve everything these parties throw at you.

Switzerland and the EU have no choice. Theyre in the middle, and its easier to go through them, than around them. as for other barriers:

You havent responded properly to what I have said, this has nothing to do with the geographical positions of the European Union and Switzerland. Infact it only helps my points, Switzerland is not a member of the EU yet is landlocked dead bang in the centre of the EU yet it trades perfectly fine without being a member of the European Union. You'll also be interested to know that Switzerlands people have been asked to 'enjoy the benefits of the EU' - and they said no. Switzerland is gifted to have a referendum lock system which means the people decide, and like we would decide and most other Europeans (if given the chance) they said no.

As for farmers, the british government also has this policy to pay farmers not to farm land, so dont bother going down that route.

If you are perfectly fine with paying our own farmers (and those in Europe) not to farm.. only for us to end up paying more as their is not a surplus of goods.. then you are perfectly entitled to that view although most would class a system like that as total madness. So to finish with that point, no it doesnt make goods any cheaper - it makes them more expensive which is the opposite of what you claim.

Its good for us, the consumers, and not the necessarily the businesses.. the ones that dont import, that is..

It is not good at all for the consumer, what isnt good for the business isnt good for the consumer as the price is passed down to the consumer. It happens in big business, medium business and small business. A business exists to create profit and generate wealth, if it cannot generate the wealth it wishes then it is forced to pass on the price to the consumer so that you end up paying more, not less as you claim.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/mig0510.pdf - page 7, long term migration. I agree with the last point, where we should have an australian type system. (tbh, i thought the UK do control international immigration, just not EU..)

The statistics arent showing up, but heres a page I found which shows the levels of immigration are higher than the emigration levels (again doesnt include illegals or asylum seekers) - as you can see on the chart below, immigration is vastly higher to emigration levels which proves my point that the system is out of control.

The UK doesnt really control international immigration, hence why we have so many people being able to come here who are either a) criminals b) not needed c) extremists d) here for the benefits e) cannot speak English and so forth. This also does not target the issue that is EU immigration (of which the last government grossly underestimated) and the fact that once Turkey joins the European Union, the door to the likes of Iran, Iraq and so forth will be swung open to Europe.

'FOOD LABELLING'

Our parliament, being the oldest democracy in the world, is now unable to pass legislation regarding food labelling? are you seriously telling me that?

not really, why is that a problem, anyway. Next youre gonna be saying that whichever government brought in the BBC (i think labour), BBC have a more favoured opinion of them. The BBC are neutral.

That is exactly what I am telling you. Infact Lord Pearson even has a thinktank devoted to the topic itself I believe. I will give you an example myself that I notice rather often - the BBC always invites Guardian journalists onto the show despite the Guardian being a paper that sells poorly and is read by a small minority of the newspaper readership. I also noticed once just by sitting watching the television, that during a UKIP meeting in Buckinghamshire a few months back - the BBC felt the need to mention the word 'BNP' in the same line.

It is subtle hints such as that which make it biased, the article you quoted is just another example on the bias it places to its supporters and donors. Why is the BBC (supposedly neutral) running articles on how the European Union is good for me? - a newspaper is biased, a state owned broadcaster should be far from bias. Personally I would privatise and split the BBC up anyway, its nothing more than a bloated state 'asset' which relies on a stealth tax to fund its wasteful spending.