British government seeks permission to cut 5p off fuel prices

[GommeInc]

EU membership makes it easier to trade with other EU countries (which is the main market for these US companies located here) and so it does contribute to these multi nationals being located here.

It's a bit hit and miss though, trade levvies backed by the EU make it incredibly difficult for some member states to export some goods, and some countries outside the EU too. I think it was the Kenya flower trade that was hit hard by a pointless EU tax which was added to ensure the flowers were checked before entering the EU zone, even though the company checked the flowers before they left. In some cases, the EU does add some bizarre safety and security checks that are already carried out, but they feel they need to do their own.

It's used in a few case studies when talking about globalisation, particularly the global market. The EU should only enforce free trade (or duty free imports and exports, however you wish to word it) and ensure items imported are safe to enter, they shouldn't add a tax to cover this when the country exporting the goods already has checks in place. Interestingly, this is a January 2011 source, and the study I did was a few years ago, so it's interesting it is still going on :/

Source: http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/C...z/-/index.html

[-:Undertaker:-]

to your first post - the European Commission does not just rule by decree, it holds the civil service and is pretty much instructed by the council to draft laws which are then looked at by the council of ministers (MPs of the respective governments of the EU) and the MEPs. The council also are the civil service of the EU too. You don't elect your civil service. And this is on top of the Commission being appointed by the Prime Ministers/Presidents of each country and passing a vote of confidence in the Parliament. I think it is accountable.

The USA doesn't elect its Supreme Court which essentially says whether laws are legal or not (and the judges are appointed, not voted in).

There was a graph in one book I have, showing the difference between regulations and directives (one being drafted by the commission and not going through the EU 'parliament', the other being parliamentary legislation) and it was tipped something like 98% towards the commission legislation which is what makes it so undemocratic. Even when going through the parliament, it still often gets voted through as the UK is often outvoted on issues - the same with the Council itself where they have introduced QVM.. this is undemocratic and thus unacceptable that a British parliament which lends the sovereignty from the people, can be dictated to.

No matter how you dress it up, it is not accountable to the people. Farage went over the 'Community method' only the other day, it is not democratic and cannot work as a democracy because look at Belgium - look at our own sovereign state, which is comprised of differing countries which are fragmenting as all aritifical states do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNDKzqZh768

Why, we’ll ask, did we give our nation away...

If an occupying power did to us what the European Union does – carted off huge piles of national wealth, robbed us of our right to make our own foreign policy or laws, abolished our passports, compelled us to import its goods at preferential rates, cut us off from the English-speaking world while forcing us to allow in ­millions of continental workers (inclu­ding doctors who cannot speak English), dem­anded the right to arrest our people and carry them off to unfair trials on the Continent, ordered our MPs and courts about, closed rural post offices, fined market traders for selling vege­tables in pounds and ounces – we’d be in revolt. But because our own political leaders allow this to happen, anyone who opposes the EU membership that lies behind all this is dismissed as an extremist or meaninglessly sneered at as a ‘Little Englander’. One day, people will wonder why.

And its true, it has done all of these things - now threatening our monetary system, fiscal policy, justice policy to an even greater extent.

I don't believe that it was always planned to be a "European superstate". After world war two, the main reason for working together was to prevent wars occuring again in Europe. Even you cannot deny how successful it has been in that regard. Also Europe as a whole is far far wealthier today than it was after world war two, and the EU has played a huge role in this.

EU membership makes it easier to trade with other EU countries (which is the main market for these US companies located here) and so it does contribute to these multi nationals being located here.

I can tell you, gurantee to you and promise you that that is the case and it was always intended to be the case and the reason so many have been duped by it (including politicians) is because it was done by stealth. Really it is very interesting and clever the way it has been done, read the Great Deception by Christopher Booker which lists sources and so forth. The man behind it all was Jean Monnet, he is involved for decades in the project.

And I think you are referring to NATO which kept the peace in mainland Europe (to an extent) since World War II, a now mostly useless organisation but in its prime did hold back the wall of Soviet aggression. That said, neither (especially the EU) did anything to stop the murder in the Balkans only a few years back.

[Eoin247]

I can tell you, gurantee to you and promise you that that is the case and it was always intended to be the case and the reason so many have been duped by it (including politicians) is because it was done by stealth. Really it is very interesting and clever the way it has been done, read the Great Deception by Christopher Booker which lists sources and so forth.

And I think you are referring to NATO which kept the peace in mainland Europe (to an extent) since World War II, a now mostly useless organisation but in its prime did hold back the wall of Soviet aggression. That said, neither (especially the EU) did anything to stop the murder in the Balkans only a few years back.

Well for the moment i suppose we're going to have to agree to disagree on wether or not the EU was always intended to be a European superstate. I will however take you up on that offer to read that book.

I wasn't talking about NATO. As a result of our economies now being so tied up with one another, there will near definetaly never be another war between countries again in Europe. Before world war two European countries totaly and constantly worked against each other, now they work together to a far greater extent.

[GommeInc]

I wasn't talking about NATO. As a result of our economies now being so tied up with one another, there will near definetaly never be another war between countries again in Europe. Before world war two European countries totaly and constantly worked against each other, now they work together to a far greater extent.

The only problem now is that all these countries have to share inner-European burdens. Immigration is one problem with open border policies, absorbing industries is another e.g. Germany has some how taken over the car manufacturing business so UK plants tend to close down in favour for ones in Cologne, Germany. Not necessarily a bad thing, but sharing powers means conflicting interests in the populace of seperate countries - the UK having to give some prisoners the vote even though it's never been a problem, the UK having to restrict fishing because there's a blanket rule that disallows us to fish in our waters because fisheries around the Scandinavian countries are so poorly managed that they forget that fish do not just magically appear, they need time to breed and recover The French do not particularly like the whole immigration idea as they have to put up with immigrants camping in and around Calais because they want to come here, but we do not want them.

Pre-World War Two wasn't as bad as made out, Europe was quite peaceful other than the few major events that kicked off the wars in the first place. We had good relations with Greece which appear to of disappeared now :/

[Eoin247]

It's a bit hit and miss though, trade levvies backed by the EU make it incredibly difficult for some member states to export some goods, and some countries outside the EU too. I think it was the Kenya flower trade that was hit hard by a pointless EU tax which was added to ensure the flowers were checked before entering the EU zone, even though the company checked the flowers before they left. In some cases, the EU does add some bizarre safety and security checks that are already carried out, but they feel they need to do their own.

It's used in a few case studies when talking about globalisation, particularly the global market. The EU should only enforce free trade (or duty free imports and exports, however you wish to word it) and ensure items imported are safe to enter, they shouldn't add a tax to cover this when the country exporting the goods already has checks in place. Interestingly, this is a January 2011 source, and the study I did was a few years ago, so it's interesting it is still going on :/

Source: http://www.businessdailyafrica.com/C...z/-/index.html

In the link you provided it says [QUOTE]In the absence of the pact, Kenya’s flower exports could be subjected to a 16 per cent duty /QUOTE]


You said it was done, yet your source doesn't say it was done? It merely suggests that it might happen if a trade agreement isn't signed. Not to mention there's usualy duty on products between countries, this deal made it and perhaps will again make it totally duty free.

I don't know if you've ever been to Africa before, but trust me standards there are far lower than they are in the west. Just because the EU wants to check themselves doesn't mean it's pointless. Also i don't see how Kenya losing out on their flower trade is a disadvantage to EU countries. As your source says if Kenya doesn't supply them Ethiopia will. No offence to any Kenyans, but i don't really care if it's Kenya or Ethiopia that get the flower trade dominance.

The only problem now is that all these countries have to share inner-European burdens. Immigration is one problem with open border policies, absorbing industries is another e.g. Germany has some how taken over the car manufacturing business so UK plants tend to close down in favour for ones in Cologne, Germany. Not necessarily a bad thing, but sharing powers means conflicting interests in the populace of seperate countries - the UK having to give some prisoners the vote even though it's never been a problem, the UK having to restrict fishing because there's a blanket rule that disallows us to fish in our waters because fisheries around the Scandinavian countries are so poorly managed that they forget that fish do not just magically appear, they need time to breed and recover The French do not particularly like the whole immigration idea as they have to put up with immigrants camping in and around Calais because they want to come here, but we do not want them.

Pre-World War Two wasn't as bad as made out, Europe was quite peaceful other than the few major events that kicked off the wars in the first place. We had good relations with Greece which appear to of disappeared now :/

You hear far more people complaining in Ireland and the UK about jobs going to China rather than to central Europe. To say relationships between the majority of European countries were good wouldn't be a true statement at all before world war two. As i said, before ww2 countries tended to work against each other rather than with each other,

For example with regards to wars, here are some that occured in Europe from 1900 to just before world war two.

1900-1939
1911-1912 Italo-Turkish War
1912–1913 Balkan Wars
1912-1913 First Balkan War
1913 Second Balkan War
1914–1918 World War I
1916 Easter Rising
1917–1921 Russian Civil War
1918 Finnish Civil War
1918 Polish-Czech war for Teschen Silesia
1918–1919 Polish-Ukrainian War
1918–1919 Greater Poland Uprising
1918–1920 Estonian Liberation War
1918-1920 Latvian War of Independence
1919 Hungarian–Romanian War of 1919
1919-1922 Greco-Turkish War
1919-1923 Turkish War of Independence
1919–1920 Czechoslovakia-Hungary War
1919–1921 Silesian Uprisings
1919–1921 Polish-Soviet War
1919–1921 Anglo-Irish War
1920 Polish-Lithuanian War
1921 Uprising in West Hungary
1922–1923 Irish Civil War
1936–1939 Spanish Civil War
1939 Slovak-Hungarian War
1939 Occupation of Zakarpattia Oblast by Hungary

[-:Undertaker:-]

The only reason for the halt in wars (especially in Europe) but also globally is the coming of the nuclear age, which was post-1945 (which you can see from then on, full scale wars have decreased dramatically). This nuclear age has led to the concept of MAD, and not to add the fact that Europe was controlled by one power, the Soviet Union + NATO. The European Union has nothing to do with the prevention of wars, which have occured anyway in southern Europe/the Balkans and cannot even act against Libya which is just south (not that i'm advocating that anyway). The rest of the world has also not been as active in warfare on such a large scale, again, because of the nuclear age and not because of the EU. The idea that the EU has prevented any wars or could prevent any wars is mere scaremongering.

Our economy back under Queen Elizabeth I was also heavily reliant on Europe (the Spanish Netherlands) and always has been, always will be just that trends change in differing goods and so on. With the global economy, lets trade globally and free ourselves of managed trade blocs which hinder our trade with organisations such as the Commonwealth.

[alexxxxx]

There was a graph in one book I have, showing the difference between regulations and directives (one being drafted by the commission and not going through the EU 'parliament', the other being parliamentary legislation) and it was tipped something like 98% towards the commission legislation which is what makes it so undemocratic. Even when going through the parliament, it still often gets voted through as the UK is often outvoted on issues - the same with the Council itself where they have introduced QVM.. this is undemocratic and thus unacceptable that a British parliament which lends the sovereignty from the people, can be dictated to.

No matter how you dress it up, it is not accountable to the people. Farage went over the 'Community method' only the other day, it is not democratic and cannot work as a democracy because look at Belgium - look at our own sovereign state, which is comprised of differing countries which are fragmenting as all aritifical states do.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CNDKzqZh768

But what you have to remember dan is that most regulations in the UK are not passed in parliament, faceless public bodies come up with them. That is essentially the same. The laws that pass regulatory control to these bodies is democratic.