EU ABOLISHES ROAMING CHARGES

[lawrawrrr]

He's just trying to do that "ooOoOoo scary if we weren't inside the EU cos lyke unknown" thing when everything you said made economic and political sense.

Indeed if he'd have read the press release and the article it is clear HM Government is fully behind this price cap so you could even argue we'd have been able to do it possibly faster than the EU has given how slow and sluggish the bureacratic machinery in Brussels functions. Either way, it's certain it'd be enacted.

Well, he has a point, we don't know for SURE what would happen if we did leave the EU although it doesn't seem to make a lot of business sense to go against it. The only way to actually guarantee roaming charges stay low (if that's anyone's main concern about the EU debate.......) is to stay in the EU so I see that point, but it is scaremongering of the most pathetic and petty level.

Sorry, I misread your post. I thought you were being an idiot like Dan and arguing about what the UK would have done in an alternative universe where we were never part of the EU. Yeah, the UK could keep the caps if we left the EU! Although that doesn't take away from the fact that this is something the EU has done which has benefited us.

Thanks for apologising. As I've said to Dan above, it is all speculation what would happen if we left - or what would have happened if we'd not been in the EU at all. The scaremongering and speculation filtereing down to even this level is just amazing though when in all honesty it wouldn't make sense to put them back up after so I doubt it's really enough to make a big impact to anyone's vote either way surely... and some people are taking it EXTREMELY seriously and using it as some kind of massive platform for the debate as a whole. I don't understand it. Yes, it could have happened without the EU but taking it to the levels of the alternate universe you mentioned is, I agree, ridiculous. It's all well and good to speculate what may or may not happen without the EU but we can't really turn back time and deny it all and to even try to do so is a waste of time.

I do completely agree with the bit I've bolded though and it's great for individuals - which is what this is more about than politics IMO.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In fact, the UK government could have put a cap on roaming charges at any point despite being in the EU and they didn't. Your argument is provably wrong.

my god your going to drive me to drink someday. you've already read it's happening regardless of the EU.

no matter what I post - you'll completely blank it. i'll bother posting the history/process tho for the benefit of others reading. @lawrawrrr; @scottish;

The EU can claim very little which is to the direct advantage of ordinary people. So, when it thinks there is something it can use to its advantage, it grabs it with both hands and pushes it for all it's worth.

It comes as no surprise, therefore, to find the Government in its propaganda leaflet bigging up the decision to abolish mobile phone roaming charges across the EU, thereby saving UK customers up to 38p per minute on calls.

Claiming credit for such things, though, is what the EU does – even when it is not the prime mover. As Pete pointed out a little while back, reducing roaming charges is a global initiative in which one of the major players is not the EU but the OECD.

However, if there is any single group that can take the credit for forcing changes, it is an obscure organisation that calls itself the International Telephone Users Group (INTUG). Founded in 1974, a year after the UK joined the then EEC, it is an international association of business users of telecommunications with members and contacts in all five continents and thus claims a global presence.

In 2010, the OECD published its policy recommendations, which put the move to reduce roaming charges on a truly international footing, also pulling in the WTO as part of a globally co-ordinated initiative.

In 2013, effectively it was all over, with the OECD invoking WTO (of which the UK does not have a seat due to EU membership) provisions, stating that "international mobile roaming services are believed to fall under the scope of these provisions" and "more clearly so under section 5 a) of the Annex on Telecommunications".

EU or not, the writing was on the wall. We saw in 2013, India committing to removing roaming charges. African countries followed, alongside Latin America. ASEAN members are set to do likewise. In the United States and the Caribbean, things are also moving in the right direction.

As for the EU, it has been slow to the point of hesitant, its actions marked down as unambitious. Its claim to be looking after consumer interests is hollow, representing nothing more than them taking credit for an unstoppable movement that was going to happen anyway.

Full article (sourced) and progress on roaming charges can be read here: http://eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=86008

[xxMATTGxx]

Another wise decision by the good old European Union.

Got to love the good old European Union!

[David]

Another wise decision by the good old European Union.

Got to love the good old European Union!

something about merkel

[scottish]

Priase Merkels decisions.

ps dno why its angelika but w/e

[abc]

Have you replied to any of the arguments yet in the EU thread?

Even if it was just the EU (it is not) and you had to be in the EU to abolish them (again, not) it wouldn't justify staying in and being governed from abroad.

I stopped reading most of your posts as I became bored of the same repetition. You do not debate, you repeat yourself constantly and refuse to admit you have been defeated on any point. For example, here the EU have done something good and you are looking for excuses to trash them? I enjoy good debates, not someone just repeating the same points with IFS, BUTS, COULDS, WOULDS. And more importantly you attack those from the STAY campaign who use the same IFS BUTS WOULD etc. It's pathetic.

Like Akeam said, the UK never abolished the roaming even though it could have, the EU did. So despite how much you hate the EU, give them credit instead of trying to run around looking for excuses and making yourself look like a bigger fool.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well this is exactly what I am talking about. I post well researched rebuttals with all sources provided and they just ignore it all including @xxMATTGxx; who has also ignored everything factual I have said and has +repped abc as though he's rebutted anything with some facts. Nothing, nilch. It's all about personalities here now.

So despite how much you hate the EU, give them credit instead of trying to run around looking for excuses and making yourself look like a bigger fool.

Are you like really that dense? Have you not read one word of what I have posted regarding the process of abolishing data roaming charges?

Did you not read how it has been a general global initiative taken by the OECD and at the WTO?

Like Akeam said, the UK never abolished the roaming even though it could have, the EU did

Do you not understand why the UK might have stalled legislation and waited for EU legislation?

Because had the British government legislated in say 2013 to abolish these roaming charges and introduced the legislation it would then have implemented these changes and then only a couple of years later had to tear them up because EU law is currently supreme to any British law therefore making a legislative mess of it all. Why would one introduce and go about introducing regulations of their own when they know the supranational body is drawing up those laws anyway? It'd be like introducing a carbon targets scheme when you know there's one being drawn up by the EU which will (in law) override your own. Utterly pointless.

[xxMATTGxx]

I haven't actually +repped abc so get your facts right. Or maybe we should we go back to the post where you threatened or you said "PROMISED" to post much less when you didn't get your way and get your post count restored but have posted like 200 times already since then. Once again, Dan talking out of his ******* ass.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I haven't actually +repped abc so get your facts right. Or maybe we should we go back to the post where you threatened or you said "PROMISED" to post much less when you didn't get your way and got your post count restored but have posted like 200 times already since then. Once again, Dan talking out of his **** arse.

My apologies then I thought you had +repped him as your name appeared at the bottom. I take that back completely.

And btw I have been posting much less, especially in threads.

[David]

including @xxMATTGxx; who has ... +repped abc

that was me actually, cause he called u out on ur shit and i found it funny

Have you not read one word of what I have posted

Did you not read how

he literally said he didn't read your post and stated why ya nugget