Rave Up with Arielle Free

[E*F*4L]

What about the Scots Irish and Welsh?? Please remember its not just England in the UK.

they now have their own parliaments, because Labour wants decisions more local & relevant & to get local people feel they have more say over what goes on, seems ironic on two fronts, a Scottish PM wants to continue to split up the union & give more power away so people feel even further away from the decisions tat get made.

[midnight]

they now have their own parliaments, because Labour wants decisions more local & relevant & to get local people feel they have more say over what goes on, seems ironic on two fronts, a Scottish PM wants to continue to split up the union & give more power away so people feel even further away from the decisions tat get made.

Although they have their own parliaments the major decisions still get made by the British government and these are the ones that the EU would be likely to make decisions about, and although a Scottish MP wants independence I think you will find that the support for this is not as high as people think it is.

[E*F*4L]

Although they have their own parliaments the major decisions still get made by the British government and these are the ones that the EU would be likely to make decisions about, and although a Scottish MP wants independence I think you will find that the support for this is not as high as people think it is.

well why not give people the choice then by way of a vote, part of the UK or not ?

then let them make all their own decisions & raise their own taxes, the SNP cannot have it both ways ?

i would like to clarify, i'm not having a go at Scotland, it's the politics thats the problem.

HOME > NEWS / SHOWBIZ > UK NEWS > EU to ban all shop refunds

UK NEWS

EU TO BAN ALL SHOP REFUNDS

EU BUREAUCRATS want to end the right of shoppers to get their money back for shoddy goods.

This would end the 100 years of protection British consumers have enjoyed.

For more than a century, shops have offered refunds to people who return unwanted or faulty goods.

Plans by the European Union to “harmonise” consumer law will short-change them by removing that right and weakening safeguards.

Ministers have vowed to fight the Consumer Rights Directive but the UK Government has no power to stop the change if it is backed by the majority of European Union states.

Worse still, if the law is passed retailers will be banned from “gold-plating” the legislation by continuing to offer money- back guarantees.

Lola Bello, senior policy advocate for Consumer Focus, said: “Our right to return shoddy goods helps keep industry on its toes.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/137380/EU-to-ban-all-shop-refunds

just the start

will be VAT on books/magazines & children's clothes next, they have been wanting to do this for years.

[Robbie Keane]

Lovely half-arsed journalism, there.

First of all, the EU laws will not change anyone's ability to return an item within an allotted period of time as defined by the manufacturer. The manufacturer can set any warranty that they wish - if they want to give you a 1 day guarentee, a 12 month one or even a 3 year one, they can do so. The "law" in question in that report is the one whereby, beyond your manufacturer guarentee, you have the right to COMPLAIN to the store of purchase about a faulty product if you can prove that it is the fault of the product and not anything that you've done to it. If you smash a camera on the floor after six days, you've got less of a leg to stand on than if you use it after a year and the shutter won't work properly (and you've not even touched it in those three years). It's rich to say that we've "enjoyed" these rights for so long - very few people even know their current rights and mostly just give up and replace the product.

Plus, you conveniently left this part of the story out:

Instead of money-back guarantees, the directive would allow traders to offer only the repair or replacement of faulty goods.

Which is pretty fair, to be honest. Many people abuse the current system, including store staff who often try to worm their way out of doing anything if a product falls out of a warranty. The laws desperately need clearing up and clarifying and if the EU is working to do that, sure it'll be imperfect at first but what directive isn't? Christ, Britian has made so many mistakes on its own merits, but all the silly racist patriots don't see it and just ignore our own shortcomings to blame Europe because it's easy to blame the foreigners instead of realising that, if we were left to our own devices, we'd go to shit far quicker than we have done already.

It also doesn't mention the positives of the directive, such as removing the rights of companies to charge people for things they haven't opted for - such as holiday insurance which is bundled in without giving the consumer the choice. And lowering prices for businesses. But who cares about that when AAARRRGGGHHH EUROPE!!!!?

[E*F*4L]

what it is doing though is placing the onus onto the manufacture, when i got a free view box from Comet, after a few weeks the remote stopped working, so i took it back to Comet & they swapped it for another one, another occasion i got a cheap dvd player from Argos & after a few months the tray stopped working so i took it back & they said they would swap it for another one, but i wanted my money back as it wasn't that good a dvd player, yes it was cheap but i had seen a better one for a few more pounds.

now under the new EU laws, the freeview box would have to be returned to the manufacture & i would have had to have just accepted a replacement dvd player, it's just like if you buy a pair of shoes & some shops won't take them back if you have wore them.

the problems we had with a Dyson vacuum, as you have to get Dyson to replace/repair them the shops won't take them back, we had to do this three times & the problems trying to get the money back so we could buy a different make, was a joke !

Instead of money-back guarantees, the directive would allow traders to offer only the repair or replacement of faulty goods.

The liability for replacement or repair would also be cut from six years to two, even though such products as cars, boilers and double glazing should reasonably be expected to last longer.

The EU Committee said this raised fears of a spawning new culture of “disposable” goods as the incentive to manufacture hard-wearing products would be removed.

if you have a TV that cost's £500 & if it breaks one day after the two year warranty (or even with-in the warranty) are Sony going to repair it ? no because it's not economically viable, so they will more than likely offer you

money off another Sony TV (equivalent to what your broken one is worth £50-100's) but what if you want to buy a Panasonic one, you will loose the money.

It is the loss of the right to refund which has prompted the biggest backlash against the directive however. Mats Persson, research director of the think-tank Open Europe, said: “The directive will sweep away the age-old right of Britons to get their money back for returned goods.

if something breaks after a few months/days why shouldn't you be able to get your money back ?

this will be even worse when it comes to buying from the internet.

you already have to be told about things like included insurance anyway.

sure it'll be imperfect at first but what directive isn't?

well considering they spend years talking & spend billions on these things you would think they could get something right, oh of forgot about the corruption & fraud that goes on in the EU & that the budget never gets signed off, they cannot even decide where to have the EU Parliament !

Now a group of MEPs is demanding that the move to Brussels, home of the European Union, be made permanent. The parliament's Labour group has started an online petition backing such a move. Current rules state that the parliament must hold 12 plenary sessions a year in Strasbourg, with most other meetings held in Brussels. One MEP's suggestion, reported here, is for the parliament to simply hold all 12 sessions in Strasbourg on one day, at hourly intervals.

Strasbourg does have its supporters. They cite its historic significance on the French-German border and say they prefer dispersion of European institutions around the region. But the pro-consolidation camp has strong arguments in favour of seating both theparliament and EU in Brussels: greater efficiency, substantial cost savings, and a smaller carbon footprint. The numbers are compelling. According to this report, all the travel back and forth between the two seats of government for European officials costs 203m euros and produces about 20,000 tons of carbon dioxide

http://www.economist.com/blogs/certainideasofeurope/european_parliament/ & http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7598604.stm

Britian has made so many mistakes on its own merits, but all the silly racist patriots don't see it and just ignore our own shortcomings to blame Europe because it's easy to blame the foreigners instead of realising that, if we were left to our own devices, we'd go to shit far quicker than we have done already.

oh so Britain's aren't as cleaver as the other europeans then !

[Robbie Keane]

oh so Britain's aren't as cleaver as the other europeans then !

I don't even need to make fun of you - you just did it for me.

[Robbie Keane]

But yeah, almost everything you're writing is hyperbolic reactionary bollocks spewed out of the shitguzzle of political ignorance.

First of all, you're completely wrong that the EU would remove the right for you to get your money back from a manufacturer - the law applies to the seller, not the manufacturer. That's why your Sony example is useless, because it doesn't fit into the context of the situation - if you buy direct from Sony, they have their own set warranty for you. If you buy from a third-party, most stores like Tesco actually try to hide behind our currently flawed and pretty stupid laws to NOT give out refunds and exchanges beyond the warranty because few people know enough about the laws to fight their case. It's funny that you're arguing against the EU and yet note your own problems with Dyson which falls under OUR laws. Do you not see how that ridicules your own argument? You're both defending and attacking your own stance, which is weird and yet typical of this sort of argument.

Secondly, if you're within the warranty, there is no problem. The issue stems from beyond the first 12 months, by which point a refund is a pretty stupid thing to ask for - that's just common sense talking. And although this six year figure keeps getting banded around, I don't believe there's any official documentation listing it as the correct timeframe. It's simply a minimum of two years which is the general EU law. Beyond that is down to how nice the store in question is.

There is also absolutely nothing that states that you can't get a refund after a few days. The paper is sensationalising the story to make people desperate to believe how evil the EU are (like yourself) start whipping up a frenzy when, in reality, it's not nearly as big a story as people think.

And yes, there are rules coming into place to ban any transaction whereby a customer has not agreed to everything they're purchasing (including insurance). There are still, to this day, a number of things that get added without the initial permission of the customer, and the only reason that this is changing to benefit the customer is the EU. Look it up - Guardian article from January of this year, spells it out pretty clearly for you.

The rest of your writing is hard to take seriously because it's so biased. Essentially, I can sum up your argument in a sentence: "EU is flawed, EU is rubbish, EU is corrupt, and I'm just going to ignore all the flaws, rubbish and corruptions of the British government because Britain > EU, right guys?" That's the point you're making when you strip away all the dressing, and it's simply not a sustainable argument. You can't say the EU is corrupt, as if our government is clean as a whistle. We're one of the worst-ran countries in Europe right now, we're facing new issues on a near-daily basis, and yet the EU is bad? Seriously, either admit that you're copying directly from the UKIP/BNP handbooks or actually think about what you're saying.

[E*F*4L]

I don't even need to make fun of you - you just did it for me.

thats firefox spell checker for you.

if a Dyson breaks, you cannot take it back to the shop, you have to go through Dyson, same for Xbox & PS3.

the EU is corrupt, it has never signed off a budget yet & the MEP's that have tried to expose the corruption have all been dismissed, you think the expenses are bad here with the UK MP's, the MEP's are even worse.

i never said the UK government was/is clean as a whistle & i agree that we are badly run, but who's fault is that ? the people or the Labour government ??? but at least we have some sort of say of who is running the country.

exactly how will embracing all these EU rules, laws & handing over our taxes, powers will benefit us here in the UK ?

i cannot see how it will work, i have absolutely nothing in common with a Romania office worker, French farmer, Estonian nurse or Portuguese taxi driver, if this had happened a few hundred years ago like the formation of the USA it would be ok but it's been to long now, we all have different values etc, thats my point, do you really think this is going to give people more power/say on how their lives are run, i feel far removed from what goes on in Westminster , let alone Strasbourg or wherever the Parliament is this month Brussels is it ?

also why don't we get to good laws from other EU countries here in the UK,for example; not giving free benefits & health-care to illegal immigrants (as they do in France) or the relaxation of censorship laws (Denmark - Holland) .

i just don't see any benefits of the EU, i'm not sure where these vehemently pro-EU supporters like yourself think that it will make life better for anyone (except the bureaucrats & hangers on that get paid for it).

[E*F*4L]

Cameron's EU treaty treachery

The way David Cameron has broken his referendum promise on the Lisbon treaty shows contempt for loyal Eurosceptic Tories

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/nov/03/david-cameron-lisbon-treaty-betrayal

knew Dave had no spine :|

lost my vote now.

[Robbie Keane]

I'm not "vehemently pro-EU" at all. There's plenty of things I'd like Britain to retain control of. I'm just not narrow-minded like you are about it, and I'm trying to broaden my argument beyond "nuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Europe bad nuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr I'm white, not a Romanian taxi driver nuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr got mine so fuck you nuuuuuuuuuuuurrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr".

[fathomer90]

Cameron has no spine? Dont be foolish- you cant have a referendum on a treaty which has already been ratified.

[E*F*4L]

Cameron has no spine? Dont be foolish- you cant have a referendum on a treaty which has already been ratified.

pity the EU doesn't value the democratic process though, ie letting people have a say on their future & not of career politicians who's only interest is getting rich & getting their place in history.

wow what a great job !

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8027602.stm

"we are uniting on the basis of diversity"

seems that a MEP does nothing except travel around europe going to meetings, same as every other states MP does really, two people doing now doing the job of one man.

http://ec.europa.eu/justice_home/key_issues/fundamental_rights/fund_rights_1004_en.pdf

What it means for you

The Charter is a summary of shared European values that all citizens can identify with. It offers people in

the EU a tool for defending themselves, through knowing and understanding their rights, and for exercising

greater control over the activities of national and European authorities when they enact and implement

Union legislation. It does not apply to Member States’ domestic activities governed by national laws or

constitutions.

The Charter affirms in clear and comprehensible language the respect for democracy, human rights and

fundamental freedoms that lies at the heart of the European Union

de·moc·ra·cy

(d-mkr-s)

n. pl. de·moc·ra·cies

1. Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.

2. A political or social unit that has such a government.

3. The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.

4. Majority rule.

5. The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community.

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000 O.J. (C 364) 1 (Dec. 7, 2000).

Article 39

Right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament

1. Every citizen of the Union has the right to vote and to stand as a candidate at elections to the European Parliament in the Member State in which he or she resides, under the same conditions as nationals of that State.

2. Members of the European Parliament shall be elected by direct universal suffrage in a free and secret ballot.

http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/europeanunion2.html

EU = democracy & fundamental freedoms (right to vote) or EU = :*

[Nik B.]

as much as I'd love to join on this argument, I'm keeping schtum. Its too out of hand for my liking.

[Robbie Keane]

I'm slowly going insane at the idiocy EF4L is showing in this thread. My head may explode at the Daily Mail/UKIP-level argument here. You're still arguing on the basis that Europe is bad and Britain is... well, let's ignore them because Europe is bad, right guys?

"The differences between the yes and no campaigns are brilliant btw

Yes Campaign: Poster of smug guy, "Yes for Jobs"

No Campagin: "European Democracy: 1945-2009?! VOTE NO!"

Vague promises vs completely baseless threats, whoyagot?"

http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3209248&pagenumber=1&perpage=40#post366492457

[Chippy]

Bring on the Euro!

[E*F*4L]

so what good will the EU do for England then ???

all i can see is that everyone's voice has got smaller & less important.

the EU cannot decide on where to have it's Parliament.

the EU stood by & watched the Balkan war from the sidelines until the USA decided something should be done.

the EU still gives 35% of it's budget to farmers.

the EU won't have anymore relevance in geo-politics because it's irreverent as it is to fragmented due to it's citizens national identity's, eight hundred million people with hundreds even thousands of years of traditional values, beliefs & identity's cannot be expressed with one voice, the compromises needed to be made are to great.

i haven't seen/read anything that i think will make England a better place, to live & work, all i can see is more rules, laws, interfering, red-tape, politics, more money wasted.

even the most pro-EU politicians push their national views first, as i said above, that MEP in the video doesn't actually do anything, its a none-job as far as i am concerned, because what he does feels irrelevant to me, even though i know they make laws that i have to abide by, i have no actual say in what goes on.

the EU is always going on about how it holds 'democracy' i the highest regard, however the way it comes across is more socialist (very) & communist in the way it goes about things, it feels far to distant & i'm not sure the EU has done anything to affect my life in a good way, or in any way good or bad.

i think you seem to see me as anti-EU, of course i want what is best for the UK, but i cannot see anything good coming from getting deeper into the EU, if i could see any positives i would promote them.

as much as I'd love to join on this argument, I'm keeping schtum. Its too out of hand for my liking.

don't let me put you off from taking part

your views are just as important as everyone else's.

it may have got out of hand, & i may have gone over the top but i feel strongly about this, because it seems that everything that the British people have done over hundreds of years is being given away to cheaply to people who don't care & have had a dislike of the UK for many years & also that my voice is slowly being silenced, maybe the EU will be good for the UK & i will be proved wrong & if i am i will freely admit it, however is it wrong that i argue against the EU ?

the EU charter on Human rights, gives me the right to choose.

[Guest]

so what good will the EU do for England then ???

You only have to study the history of Scotland post-union with England to see what benefits being part of a larger realm can bring. Scotland became a wealthier and more prosperous nation, its infrastructure was expanded and its people, in time, became less hostile and belligerent towards the new kingdom. In fact, 302 years after one of the very first European unions (and a very successful one it has been too on the whole) the people of Scotland are still largely pro-union.

all i can see is that everyone's voice has got smaller & less important.

I think the Lisbon Treaty is supposed to give each member state a greater say in how the EU is run through their respective parliaments.

With emerging superpowers like India, China, Brazil and so on, the traditional players on the world stage such as the UK will have an ever decreasing role so regardless of whether the EU becomes a federal state with one voice or it doesn't, the UK will doubtless be suffocated by much larger powers in years to come.

the EU stood by & watched the Balkan war from the sidelines until the USA decided something should be done.

The USA spends around $400 billion per year on its defence forces. I wouldn't think Eurocorps had the capacity nor the resources to have been able to commit to a peacemaking role in that conflict. The USA, as global policeman, is more or less obligated to enter into such conflicts and crises whether it wants to or not. The problems arising from running a pan-European "army" such as Eurocorps within the Balkan conflict would've been difficult, to say the very least. That's a rather dastardly comment if I do say so.

the EU still gives 35% of it's budget to farmers.

I have no issues with this, my only issue is the effect the CAP has on non-EU farmers, especially those in Africa, due to the strict economic controls and tariffs imposed on them. Within the global capitalist system which we now find ourselves, protectionism of this kind is unduly and wholly unacceptable and the CAP should be reformed.

Several years ago under the Bush administration the USA imposed tariffs on steel imports from the UK. The tariffs were only lifted once the EU became involved, practically saving our already struggling steel industry from being totally crippled. Had the UK not been a member state of the EU at the time our steel producers may no longer be in existence today. If being in the EU gives us this kind of strength to face off more powerful nations who think they can bully us then I'm all for it.

[E*F*4L]

You only have to study the history of Scotland post-union with England to see what benefits being part of a larger realm can bring. Scotland became a wealthier and more prosperous nation, its infrastructure was expanded and its people, in time, became less hostile and belligerent towards the new kingdom. In fact, 302 years after one of the very first European unions (and a very successful one it has been too on the whole) the people of Scotland are still largely pro-union.

that was due to England being more prosperous due to it's bigger economy thus putting money into Scotland, but in the UK - EU relationship this role is reversed as the EU doesn't put more money into the UK.

seems strange that now people & politicians want the union to be split, now that Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland have their own assembly's & parliament's.

I think the Lisbon Treaty is supposed to give each member state a greater say in how the EU is run through their respective parliaments.

With emerging superpowers like India, China, Brazil and so on, the traditional players on the world stage such as the UK will have an ever decreasing role so regardless of whether the EU becomes a federal state with one voice or it doesn't, the UK will doubtless be suffocated by much larger powers in years to come.

maybe so, but it seems to me that the UK voice has been eroded faster & become less relevant the more powerful the EU has become not only on the world stage, but the european one to.

The USA spends around $400 billion per year on its defence forces. I wouldn't think Eurocorps had the capacity nor the resources to have been able to commit to a peacemaking role in that conflict. The USA, as global policeman, is more or less obligated to enter into such conflicts and crises whether it wants to or not. The problems arising from running a pan-European "army" such as Eurocorps within the Balkan conflict would've been difficult, to say the very least. That's a rather dastardly comment if I do say so.

there was nothing stopping the UK, France, Germany, Italy, Spain & the rest of the EU states sending in troops to stop what was going on, the amount of money the USA spends on defense is irrelevant, the EU waited until the USA & then the UN got involved before they decided to join in.

I have no issues with this, my only issue is the effect the CAP has on non-EU farmers, especially those in Africa, due to the strict economic controls and tariffs imposed on them. Within the global capitalist system which we now find ourselves, protectionism of this kind is unduly and wholly unacceptable and the CAP should be reformed.

i agree with what you say on this issue, my concern is the amount spent on set-aside & the regulations on food that cause thousands of tonnes of perfectly fine produce to be thrown away, when there are millions of people apparently starving.

Several years ago under the Bush administration the USA imposed tariffs on steel imports from the UK. The tariffs were only lifted once the EU became involved, practically saving our already struggling steel industry from being totally crippled. Had the UK not been a member state of the EU at the time our steel producers may no longer be in existence today. If being in the EU gives us this kind of strength to face off more powerful nations who think they can bully us then I'm all for it.

we have no steel industry anymore, but that brings up another thing, most of the major corporations in the world are controlled by the USA thanks to Milton Friedman & his 'Chicago school of economics', the USA has all the money, Africa has all the resources which are controlled by the USA & the Chinese, the EU is interfering with the grants/loans given by Germany to Magna who want to take over Opal/Vauxhall, but Magna may well walk away meaning that the German government will have to take over Opal & the UK government taking over Vauxhall or the factory's will just close down, when Microsoft were told to take out IE & WMP from Win7 the price of Win7 was higher in the EU thus not so good for consumers, the EU are always trying to interfere & do the right thing it seams & they don't seem to look at the bigger picture.

[Robbie Keane]

Serin, what a great post. A lot of stuff there that I didn't even know, so I've learnt something too. Awesome.

[fathomer90]

We do elect MEP's who sit in the European parliament to decide European policy. The fact we weren't given a referendum is the UK Govt's fault...not Europe's. So your argument falls down there. Regardless, the UK has a parliamentary democracy and has used referenda very little over the past couple of years; devoultion being a noteable example. In fact, until 1974 we had never had a referendum! Its not part of the British Constitution, and its not how our system operates.

The question seems to be E4L how powerful you want your say to be in the world...and with Europe your voice will be a lot stronger. It seems certain we are about to enter a period of Global "Anarchy" with the rise of 3 or 4 major superpowers. The UK hasn't a chance on its own. Should the EU be seen as one recognisable "block" we would be the 3rd biggest voice on the world stage- and the biggest importer of Chinese goods. We could actually have some power in influencing China over Human rights concerns (for instance) The US-UK special relationship is dead, especially with Obama as President. Sorry.

As for the role of President- it will essientially be a weak "soft power" role- which makes TB the perfect candidate. We do have the role currently on rotation amongst the member states, but it does make it difficult for world leaders to know "who to call"- Dick Cheney expressed as much when he was President :shock: , sorry, Vice President.

It's an interesting subject- and the younger generation def see themselves as much more pre-European then the older. I went to a conference a couple of weeks ago with Guadian writer Timothy Garton-Ash (He's very pro europe, some of his articles are on guardian.co.uk for you to browse at leisure) which seemed to express as much.

[midnight]

so what good will the EU do for England then ???

all i can see is that everyone's voice has got smaller & less important.

the EU cannot decide on where to have it's Parliament.

the EU stood by & watched the Balkan war from the sidelines until the USA decided something should be done.

the EU still gives 35% of it's budget to farmers.

the EU won't have anymore relevance in geo-politics because it's irreverent as it is to fragmented due to it's citizens national identity's, eight hundred million people with hundreds even thousands of years of traditional values, beliefs & identity's cannot be expressed with one voice, the compromises needed to be made are to great.

i haven't seen/read anything that i think will make England a better place, to live & work, all i can see is more rules, laws, interfering, red-tape, politics, more money wasted.

even the most pro-EU politicians push their national views first, as i said above, that MEP in the video doesn't actually do anything, its a none-job as far as i am concerned, because what he does feels irrelevant to me, even though i know they make laws that i have to abide by, i have no actual say in what goes on.

the EU is always going on about how it holds 'democracy' i the highest regard, however the way it comes across is more socialist (very) & communist in the way it goes about things, it feels far to distant & i'm not sure the EU has done anything to affect my life in a good way, or in any way good or bad.

i think you seem to see me as anti-EU, of course i want what is best for the UK, but i cannot see anything good coming from getting deeper into the EU, if i could see any positives i would promote them.

don't let me put you off from taking part

your views are just as important as everyone else's.

it may have got out of hand, & i may have gone over the top but i feel strongly about this, because it seems that everything that the British people have done over hundreds of years is being given away to cheaply to people who don't care & have had a dislike of the UK for many years & also that my voice is slowly being silenced, maybe the EU will be good for the UK & i will be proved wrong & if i am i will freely admit it, however is it wrong that i argue against the EU ?

the EU charter on Human rights, gives me the right to choose.

England and the UK are NOT the same country. England is PART of the UK but is not the UK. Would you please remember this Alan or would you rather all the non-English members of the forum left? Im am getting very fed up of being classed as English because a stupid eejit cannot distinguish the difference. I am sorry but a lot of English people seem to think that the UK is made due to them and this is not the case. If it were it would be called England and not the UK.

[Chippy]

Alen (E*F*4L) if you hate the treaty so much just sneak into the EU Meeting room and rip it up.

[E*F*4L]

England and the UK are NOT the same country. England is PART of the UK but is not the UK. Would you please remember this Alan or would you rather all the non-English members of the forum left? Im am getting very fed up of being classed as English because a stupid eejit cannot distinguish the difference. I am sorry but a lot of English people seem to think that the UK is made due to them and this is not the case. If it were it would be called England and not the UK.

:confused:

where have i said that i want anyone to leave ?

if i have the choice of being classed as English or British i will choose English, just as people from Scotland will choose Scotland, & Welsh people will choose Welsh.

Scotland & Wales have there own MEP's, so i am speaking from a English (my) point of view & since the devolved parliaments were formed i don't really see it as a United Kingdom anymore, & less so now as we are a State of Europe just as Scotland & Wales are.

i cannot see the UK being workable, if we are more integrated in the EU, because the EU lay down rules/laws, the UK government lay down rules/laws & then Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland lay down rules/laws.

Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland can pick & choose what rules/laws Westminster make to abide by or enforce so surly they can do the same with EU law, i would think the EU see Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland separate states or members.

im a bit that you think im being un-fair because i refer to myself as English.

if i have upset or offended you due to this im sorry.

David Cameron has said "never again" to powers being transferred from the UK to Brussels without a referendum.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8343022.stm

he doesn't have a clue, this is way to late & he cannot do anything about it now, he always knew the EU Constitution would become law before the Conservatives got into power & his so called guarantee or promise means nothing, how can he be trusted on any of his promises (what MP can be trusted anyway) all this will do is push people towards the far right parties.

[E*F*4L]

EU leaders have chosen the Belgian Prime Minister, Herman van Rompuy, to be the first permanent European Council President.

The other top job created by the Lisbon Treaty - foreign affairs supremo - has gone to the EU Trade Commissioner, Baroness Catherine Ashton from the UK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8367589.stm

well we have a new leader now, so lets all bow down to;

President Herman van Rompuy

[Hammer]

:confused:

where have i said that i want anyone to leave ?

if i have the choice of being classed as English or British i will choose English, just as people from Scotland will choose Scotland, & Welsh people will choose Welsh.

Scotland & Wales have there own MEP's, so i am speaking from a English (my) point of view & since the devolved parliaments were formed i don't really see it as a United Kingdom anymore, & less so now as we are a State of Europe just as Scotland & Wales are.

i cannot see the UK being workable, if we are more integrated in the EU, because the EU lay down rules/laws, the UK government lay down rules/laws & then Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland lay down rules/laws.

Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland can pick & choose what rules/laws Westminster make to abide by or enforce so surly they can do the same with EU law, i would think the EU see Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland separate states or members.

im a bit that you think im being un-fair because i refer to myself as English.

if i have upset or offended you due to this im sorry.

Can I just say that your points about the government of the UK are somewhat inaccurate. The Scottish Parliament and the assemblies in Wales and Northern Ireland have very specific and finite powers - they don't just pick and choose whether to abide by the laws of Westminster or not.

Constitutionally and in terms of legislation, there is no confusion in the hierarchy of things. Westminster holds ultimate power and retains the ability to repeal devolved parliaments, as it has done numerous times when problems in Northern Ireland have escaled. Likewise, Parliament can theoretically reverse the Bill that saw the UK enter the European Union.