OK, Tony,

Here’s another section of the CMS report which I think is wrong. I will only make reference to your claims regarding the foot in this thread - I’ll start new threads regarding mistakes about the yard & acre.

"8.9 Finally, there are the cultural, heritage and identity arguments for the retention of British weights and measures. They have been part of the fabric of this country for over 2,000 years. We can go back at least to the Molmutine laws, devised and codified in around 390 B.C. by the then King of the Britons, Dyfnal Moel Myd (the laws were named after him). These laws used some of today’s measures, such as ‘feet’, ‘yards’ and ‘acres’, which go back well beyond even 390 B.C. Each free Briton was allocated five acres of land, with more acres reserved for chieftains and other community leaders."

Firstly Tony, which foot are you referring to?

O’Keefe’s “The Law of Weights & Measures” states (I have abridged slightly)

“To get an idea of the confusion of standards it is only necessary to look at the various measures of a foot used by various people for various purposes in England and Wales immediately prior to the reign of Edward I (1272–1307):

(1) The Greek common foot (12·45 inches) was used for building.

(2) The Roman foot (11·65 inches) was also used for building.

(3) The natural foot (also called the ‘Pythic' or ‘Welsh' foot) (9·9 inches) was used by the Celts mainly in Wales for measuring land. This measure was used at various times in Persia, Asia Minor, Egypt, Babylonia, Greece and North Africa.”

“(4) The northern (or Saxon) foot (13·2 inches). Its long history (it can be traced from 3000 BC to the nineteenth century, in various parts of the world) and the wide areas (from northern India where it originated to western Europe) over which this measure was found are noteworthy. It was probably brought to this country by the Saxons who used it for measuring land and or building. They kept it for land measuring through all upheavals. In those days land was the most important form of wealth and any changes in its estimation by measure were fiercely repulsed.”

I would agree that the name “foot” goes back well beyond even 390 BC.

However, today’s foot measure shares a name with the Molmutine foot, but nothing else - the measures are different lengths.

Beranger,

You can cut through a lot of this historical stuff (interesting though it may be) by tackling the central point that Tony is trying to make.

He has said in the past that imperial measures have evolved over time, unlike metric, as though that somehow makes them better.

The point really is that if the twentieth century foot etc is not the same as in antiquity what's so sacred about them?

I would also add that just because units fall into disuse doesn't mean they are lost like say an historic building when demolished, or a wild life habitat that's destroyed, or a species of animal hunted to extinction.

Units of measurement don't have a physical existence any more than numbers do. They can be preserved in historical records. Ancient measuring equipment or scientific intruments etc can also be preserved. The only difference is they are no longer routinely applied.

We don't become any less British or lose our heritage when we take the reasonable step of adopting a system of measurement more appropriate for the times in which we live.

Stan

I have to disagree with you on this point.

Even though I attack Tony on every possible occasion, I would suggest that I am the most "Pro-Imp" of the "Pro-Mets" on the board.

All historic measurements are of interest. I should really post something about the old "Dunkeld Ell" (an intersting curiousity!)

A recent book regarding the history of W&M in Scotland has just been acquired by my local Archivist's department. I've flicked through it - and pointed out some of the old Local Standard weights I've actually used/adjusted/played with.

"Units of measurement don't have a physical existence any more than numbers do"

I disagree. I have various old weights in my house. Some of them might have been the old Imperial standards for various parts of Scotland (and I did obtain them legally!) I'm interested in this, and would suggest that they will always be of interest.....

<<<We don't become any less British or lose our heritage when we take the reasonable step of adopting a system of measurement more appropriate for the times in which we live.>>>

Spot on. This sums up my feelings exactly.

Beranger: ""Units of measurement don't have a physical existence any more than numbers do"

I disagree. I have various old weights in my house. Some of them might have been the old Imperial standards for various parts of Scotland (and I did obtain them legally!) I'm interested in this, and would suggest that they will always be of interest....."

Stan: I don't think you quite understood me. Yes they certainly are of interest and should be preserved but they are no longer used. There is nothing wrong with that.

Just because I'm prometric and wan't to see it adopted instead of imperial doesn't mean I want to go around destroying historical relics or old books, dawings and maps containing them! I just advocate that metric is used for all present day and future applications.

My point about the lack of material existence was a reference to written works where they are numbers expressing quantities or documents defining them and their realisation in the real world, even if it's just their equivalence in metric.

For example the last time the pound was defined in law it was 0.453 592 37 kg but there's no physical prototype. So the twentieth century pound only exists intellectually.

<<
Just because I'm prometric and wan't to see it adopted instead of imperial doesn't mean I want to go around destroying historical relics or old books, dawings and maps containing them! I just advocate that metric is used for all present day and future applications.
>>

There is an old Dutch saying which roughly translates "You should tip your hat in respect of the past, but roll up your sleeves to face the future"

re (Andy): "<<We don't become any less British or lose our heritage when we take the reasonable step of adopting a system of measurement more appropriate for the times in which we live>> Spot on. This sums up my feelings exactly".

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

REPLY: Change just a couple of words, and I dare say a Tibetan coud have said this in the Communist China of the 1960s onwards, i.e. after Communist China took over Tibet:

"We don't become any less Tibetan or lose our heritage when we take the reasonable step of adopting a system of government more appropriate for the times in which we live".

Ask the Tibetans now.

Or try this for, say, a Latvian in the 1940s to the 1990s in Stalinist Russia - when Russian was made the compulsory language in that country:

"We don't become any less Latvian or lose our heritage when we take the reasonable step of adopting a system of government more appropriate for the times in which we live".

No doubt, Andy, you will come out with the same mantra when you are (shortly) compulsorily made a Citizen of the European Union and - before long - lose your British citizenship

Stan said

"For example the last time the pound was defined in law it was 0.453 592 37 kg but there's no physical prototype."

Weights & Measures Act 1985
Schedule 2
Part II
Description of United Kingdom primary standard of the pound

A platinum cylinder about 1·35 inches in height and about 1·15 inches in diameter marked ‘PS 1844 1 lb’, having its edges rounded off and a groove about 0·34 inch below the top of the cylinder.

The schedule goes on to describe the 5 secondary copies

A platinum cylinder marked ‘No 1 PC 1844 1 lb’, deposited at the Royal Mint;

A platinum cylinder marked ‘No 2 PC 1844 1 lb’, deposited at the premises of the Royal Society;

A platinum cylinder marked ‘No 3 PC 1844 1 lb’, deposited at the Royal Greenwich Observatory;

A platinum cylinder marked ‘No 4 PC 1844 1 lb’, immured in the Palace of Westminster;

A platinum-iridium cylinder marked ‘PC 5 1879’ deposited at the National Weights and Measures Laboratory of the Department of Trade and Industry.

Schedule 2 has not been deleted, therefore these weights are still the UK primary & secondary standards.

I am unsure whether the Tertiary Standards (used by the NWML to check each county's set of Local Standards) are still in calibration (a tinescale is set out stating how often they need to be checked against the standard above)

The county Local Standards will still (in most cases) be kept in the local Trading Standards Metrology Lab. As they had to be checked every 5 years, the last calibrated set would have gone out of calibration about 6 months ago.

<<<No doubt, Andy, you will come out with the same mantra when you are (shortly) compulsorily made a Citizen of the European Union and - before long - lose your British citizenship>>>

Of course. Being a supporter of metric means that I obviously support everything to do with the EU.

Do you ever actually read anyones posts? You associate Beranger with the UKMA and now you are claiming that I am in favour of some kind of european superstate!

Can you not get it into your head that your stereotype of someone who supports metric does not apply to everyone?

Its been said before by someone else, but I'll say it again. Your posts are becoming an embarassment to your side.

Andy, re: "No doubt, Andy, you will come out with the same mantra when you are (shortly) compulsorily made a Citizen of the European Union and - before long - lose your British citizenship"

REPLY: Well, if and when you become a citizen of the European Uniun - and if and when you lose your British citizenship, will you say "that doesn't make me any less British"?

For me, being the holder of a 'European Community' passport already tends to make me feel less British.

And remember that the stated intention of the European politcial elite is to 'Europeanise' us so that we think of ourselves as more and more European and less and less as British, French, German or whatever.

The process of metrication does, in a modest way, contribute to this process IMO

<<< REPLY: Well, if and when you become a citizen of the European Uniun - and if and when you lose your British citizenship, will you say "that doesn't make me any less British"? >>>

It won't happen. As a British citizen I am already a citizen of the European Union. There is no need to lose national identities, and the people of Europe won't accept it.

<<<For me, being the holder of a 'European Community' passport already tends to make me feel less British.>>>

Why? Its just a piece of paper. It doesn't say "English" anywhere on my passport, but I still am.

<<<And remember that the stated intention of the European politcial elite is to 'Europeanise' us so that we think of ourselves as more and more European and less and less as British, French, German or whatever.>>>

Maybe, yes. But I don't think many ordinary European people want this to happen. When the French reject the new constitution, the political elite will be forced to rethink about where the EU is going.

<<<The process of metrication does, in a modest way, contribute to this process IMO>>>

I am against the idea of doing something just for the sake of harmonising with Europe - but I am not in favour of not doing something we were going to do anyway, just to spite the EU.

"When the French reject the new constitution, the political elite will be forced to rethink about where the EU is going."

A triple edge sword for me.

1) If the French reject it I am happy because it staves off the dangers of the EU constitution.

2) If the French reject it I am deliriously happy because it messes up the EU-philes egotistic arrogant plans.

3) If the French reject it I am morbidly UN-happy because it stops Blair being trounced in a UK referendum and gets him off the hook PLUS it does away with some great campaigning and my first ever opportunity to vote in a referendum (and one about the EU to boot, [literally]).

Hard to please, that's me.

Gosh! The referendum would be the first the British people can be involved in with regards to undoing the lies that led a majority to vote 'yes' in the last referendum to do with the EU!

Blimey! Why haven't we had one sooner?

Andy, actually you are not a Citizen of the European Union yet, which is why - if you study the text of the European Constitution carefully - you will see that it purports to make you one - if, that is, the Constitution is accepted.


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Address: 66 Chippingfield, HARLOW, Essex CM17 ODJ

You are not a ‘Citizen of the European Union’!

We have paid for a legal Opinion on the question of whether or not we are ‘Citizens of the European Union’, and if we are, what exactly the term means.

The various departments of the European Union constantly claim that we are ‘European Union Citizens’, and so do various leaflets put out by the government and other organisations in this country.

Under the Maastricht Treaty (1991), the European Union claimed that henceforth all British citizens were to be deemed ‘European Union citizens and then Conservative Prime Minister John Major even answered a House of Commons question by asserting that the Queen had also been deemed a ‘European Union Citizen’ and subject to the ‘rights and duties’ of E.U. Citizenship.

We are pleased to explain to you that you are not a Citizen of the European Union; below we give our reasons for saying this. And if you feel strongly about the matter, we give at the end of this leaflets a few practical suggestions as to what you can do.

A. The legal position on ‘E.U. Citizenship’; 12 points

1. “Citizenship can only be of a State…Since there is no State called the European Union, it can have no citizens" - from Michael Shrimpton’s legal Opinion, 20 August 2001

2. “Citizenship of the European Union is a meaningless political concept” - also from Michael Shrimpton’s legal Opinion

3. “There are no duties owed to the European Union except those adopted in accordance with the laws and constitutions of each sovereign state which is a member for the time being of the European Union” - also from Michael Shrimpton’s legal Opinion

4. In a letter from Kevin Sheehan, the Director of Operation of the United Kingdom Passport Agency to Bruce Robertson, Managing Director of Charles Robertson (Developments) Ltd., dated 9 August 2000, he wrote: “There is no such thing as an E.U. Citizen”.

5. In a letter dated 6 July 2000 to Ashley Mote, main author of the Magna Carta Society’s “In Defence of the Realm” and author of the recent book “Vigilance”, the same Kevin Sheehan wrote: “I have not told you that you are an E.U. Citizen. I do not believe there is such a concept. Citizenship and passports are matters that remain sovereign for E.U. ‘member states’”.

6. In the same letter, the Passport Operations Director also wrote: “Citizens of each member state retain their own national identity”

7. In the legal case of R v. Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Manjit Kaur, a British Overseas Citizen, Mrs Kaur, who had overstayed in this country after being given permission to live here for a limited period, tried to claim she was an ‘E.U. Citizen’ and thereby allowed to remain. The Court held that she was not an E.U. Citizen and that nationality remained a matter for E.U. ‘member states’ to decide.

8. An earlier case in the European Court of Justice, Micheletti and others, also held that who was entitled to British nationality (or indeed the nationality of any other E.U. country) remained a matter for ‘member states’ to decide.

9. Article 17 of the Maastricht Treaty states the following: “Citizenship of the European Union is hereby established. Every person holding the nationality of a member state shall be a citizen of the Union. Citizenship shall complement and not replace national citizenship”. Article 17 set out four so-called ‘rights’ of ‘E.U. Citizens; in summary these are:
(a) freedom of movement and residence anywhere within the E.U.
(b) the right to vote and be a candidate wherever you live in the E.U.
(c) diplomatic protection for other E.U. ‘member states’
(d) the right of petitioning the European Ombudsman.

In his legal Opinion, Michael Shrimpton explains that “these so-called rights are largely worthless or add nothing to existing law”. On point (c), he says: “I am not aware of any occasion where meaningful diplomatic assistance has been rendered to a national of other ‘member states’”.

10. In a letter of 24 January 2001, Kevin Sheehan (see above) wrote: “Article 17 of the Treaty of Rome, as amended, confirms that national citizenship remains in place”.

11. The Edinburgh Declaration A crisis in the development of the E.U. occurred when Denmark voted to reject the Maastricht Treaty. A major issue was Danish concern about loss of national sovereignty. The Heads of States of the E.U. met in Edinburgh and discussed what became known as ‘The Edinburgh Declaration’. They issued a statement saying: “Citizenship of the European Union does not in any way take the place of national citizenship”. The Danish Government stated at the time that Her Majesty the Queen of Denmark was not prepared to ratify the Maastricht Treaty unless ‘Citizenship of the European Union’ was recognised to be only a ‘legal and political concept’ and not to be equated with citizenship of a state.

12. Ian Taylor, Conservative MP for Esher and Walton, former Government Minister and current Chairman of ‘Britain in Europe’ (which campaigns for the euro to permanently replace the Pound and for Britain to give ever more power away to Brussels), wrote to a constituent in 1997: “There is no European citizenship as such, for you to renounce. It is used as a useful term to encourage people to work to a common aim. As it has signally failed in your case, I suggest that you ignore it”.

FOOTNOTE: Although British citizens are still subjects of the Head of State of the U.K., Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, the British Nationality Act 1981 provided that, from then, we would no longer be known as ‘Subjects’ but instead as “British Citizens”.

B. Practical Action

As part of their process of weakening our loyalty to and identity with the nation of the United Kingdom, the European powers-that-be use the them ‘E.U. Citizen’ as often had they can get away with it. Please consider taking one or both of these two practical steps:

1. We have a summary of this information about citizenship of the European Union, suitable for clipping in to your passport, or in label form, enabling you to stick it on an appropriate page of your passport. Contact us to obtain one.

2. Wherever you see any organisation using the term ‘Citizen of the European Union’, please challenge it. Send the organisation a copy of our leaflet and ask them politely never to use the term ‘E.U. Citizen’ again. One Council - Harlow - has already backed down and will no longer be using the term ‘E.U. Citizen’ on its electoral registration forms. Please keep us informed about your actions - both successes and failures - we’d love to hear from you.

There are several definitions of "citizen"

-------------------------------------

1. A person owing loyalty to and entitled by birth or naturalization to the protection of a state or nation.

2. A resident of a city or town, especially one entitled to vote and enjoy other privileges there.

3. A civilian.

4. A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place: “We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community” (Franklin D. Roosevelt).

---------------------------------------

When I said I was already a citizen of the European Union, I meant it in terms of definition 4, not 1.

re (Andy): "4. A native, inhabitant, or denizen of a particular place: 'We have learned to be citizens of the world, members of the human community' (Franklin D. Roosevelt). When I said I was already a citizen of the European Union, I meant it in terms of definition 4..."


REPLY: Arguably, then, in Roosevelt's terms, you would be a 'Citizen of Europe', rather than a 'Citizen of the European Union'.

'Citizen', I venture to suggest, implies having rights within and responsibilities to a specific organisation - i.e. a nation or state of some kind, not a geographical area

A good point - being citizen of the european union implies membership of a political entity without filling out a membership form yourself (yuk), whereas being a citizen of europe is far more attractive (although personally I would not use the word 'citizen' instead I'd prefer being associated with the graphical area)

<<< REPLY: Arguably, then, in Roosevelt's terms, you would be a 'Citizen of Europe', rather than a 'Citizen of the European Union'. >>>

Considering the possible implications of the word citizen (which I hadn't until now), I would go along with that and would rather consider myself a citizen 'of Europe' than 'of the EU'.

Whatever the term citizen is meant to be it sounds a bit like the word democracy, or freedom, you can make of it what you like.

We do have MEPs to represent us in the European Parliament to whom we can write in a manner similar to that of our ordinary MP on any issues affecting us which are sutably dealt with in a European context. We can also contact the European Commission and make representations to them on appropriate issues.

Ultimately though we are beholden to the laws of our own country or the one we are in at the time. The EU has no direct statutary powers over us so we can't expect complementary rights in reverse.

UKIP or any other group have the right to argue for the UK to withdraw from the EU if they wish but they won't win hearts and minds by pretending the EU is something it isn't or endowing it with powers it doesn't have.

<<
or endowing it with powers it doesn't have.
>>

but will soon probably have.

<<< but will soon probably have. >>>

I doubt it. As we live in a democracy, the powers of the EU are ultimately limited by what the people of Europe want. For example, the new constitution, which many people do not want, will be scrapped if one country votes against it.

"We do have MEPs to represent us in the European Parliament to whom we can write in a manner similar to that of our ordinary MP on any issues affecting us which are sutably dealt with in a European context."

Not quite.
The european commission (unelected) make up the new rules and regs etc. It is then passed to the E.P. for MEPs to vote on. It's "top down". If your local swimming pool is being shut down you can write to your MP and maybe have something done at a local level. Similarly if the government (elected) wanted to ban white-sock wearing in England then you could write to you English MP asking him or her to back or reject the ban, and if he/she goes opposite to you, you have the chance to vote him/her out in favour of someone who'll go to westminster to uphold the freedoms of white-sock wearers, or support the ban - depending on the consensus.
You can not remove the commissioners.
Whereas parliament is still (mostly) bottom-up, the EU is top-down.


"We can also contact the European Commission and make representations to them on appropriate issues."

How?

"Ultimately though we are beholden to the laws of our own country or the one we are in at the time. The EU has no direct statutary powers over us"

Yes it has - if it's been given away by successive treaties.

"UKIP or any other group have the right to argue for the UK to withdraw from the EU if they wish but they won't win hearts and minds by pretending the EU is something it isn't or endowing it with powers it doesn't have."

Of all the groups, the UKIP is pretty much clear on what's really happening. Don't forget - whether UKIPpers like it or not - their only elected individuals sit in the E.P. They see this filth in progress first-hand.


--------------

"I doubt it. As we live in a democracy, the powers of the EU are ultimately limited by what the people of Europe want."

Not if those powers have been taken away by the various treaties.
The UK is less democratic now than it's been in scores of years.
Dare I say it, but politically we're closer to a possible outcome of the 1940's now than we were back then.
Hitler was quoted as saying that all he wanted, at the end of the day, was a federal europe.
Depending on extremety, federalists either cringe at that memory or secretly adore it!


" For example, the new constitution, which many people do not want, will be scrapped if one country votes against it. "

How much nagging did Blair need before he changed his mind and allowed us the referendum?
Even today Kenneth Clarke lambasts Blair for "giving in" to the will of the people rather than "showing strength".

I guess that sort of "strength" leads to scarey notions of a "tomorrow belongs to us" mentality - the very mentality that leads to the worse kind of federalist that I mentioned only a few sentences ago.

Incidentally I remember watching an MP who defected to the LibDems from the tories.

Can't remember her name - Emma something. Beastly looking woman.

After getting elected as a LD she then stood down to fight and win an MEP seat.

On being asked why she did this she mentioned that she wanted to go to a place where real power was held, citing that Westminster is getting less and less relevant.

She wasn't saying this in a critical way - she was lavishly and smuggly loving it!

Funny though, how she decided to defect under Major, whereas she was happy to be an MP under Thatcher.

ie:- Correct!! This unknown quantity got her 15 minutes of fame in all the newspapers and on all the TV channels.

The cheapest and worse form of politician.

Sitting in the most apt place in the world for that sort.

SteveH: ""Ultimately though we are beholden to the laws of our own country or the one we are in at the time. The EU has no direct statutary powers over us"

Yes it has - if it's been given away by successive treaties."

Stan: I think you may be swallowing too much propoganda. People often talk of EU laws. There aren't any. No can be convicted of an offence under "EU law". They can only be convicted of offences under the law of the member state. The law of the member state may be its implementation of a directive but its up to that member state to decide how to implement it. It may or may not involve a criminal offence but the EU doesn't prescribe this.

This provision is subject to the member state remaining a member of the EU. It's no more than a rule of the club so to speak. The UK and any other member state remains a member of the EU at the behest of its citizens. If they decided that they didn't wan't to remain part of the EU they can apply democratic pressure to get the government to withdraw.

That after all is what UKIP is trying to do.

The logic of this is that we still have the same rights, protection and self determination with the UK as a member of the EU as not. The EU may be a large and beurocratic organisation but it isn't oppressive. It doesn't have the muscle apart from anything else.

SteveH:

""We can also contact the European Commission and make representations to them on appropriate issues."

How?""

Stan: You can write to them. I don't know the details of the process but it is there.

Lists of European Union Laws:

Type in 'List E.U. Laws' into Google, or any other search engine, and you'll get squillions of them.

If you don't obey them, then the Commission take you to the European Court of Justice in Luxembourg and your country gets fined a lot of money.

When European Directives and Regulations are 'debated' in the so-called Houses of Parliament, they are not debated at all, they are discussed. The only discussion is precisely how to implement them. The Houses of Parliament can't debate the inclusion of a single comma or letter in any E.U. Directive or Regulation.

A bit like our government telling a District Council what to do, in fact.


I found this after a few seconds' search on the Internet - and we thought in 1975 that we'd signed up just for a free trade agreement:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Directory of Community legislation (01/03/2005)
You can print out the chapter of the Directory of Community legislation in force that you are interested in from the pdf files for each chapter. The larger chapters have been split into several pdf files.

Archive

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

01. General, financial and institutional matters
02. Customs Union and free movement of goods
03. Agriculture
04. Fisheries
05. Freedom of movement for workers and social policy
06. Right of establishment and freedom to provide services
07. Transport policy
08. Competition policy
09. Taxation
10. Economic and monetary policy and free movement of capital
11. External relations
12. Energy
13. Industrial policy and internal market
14. Regional policy and coordination of structural instruments
15. Environment, consumers and health protection
16. Science, information, education and culture
17. Law relating to undertakings
18. Common Foreign and Security Policy
19. Area of freedom, security and justice
20. People's Europe

<<
I doubt it. As we live in a democracy, the powers of the EU are ultimately limited by what the people of Europe want. For example, the new constitution, which many people do not want, will be scrapped if one country votes against it.
>>

Mark my word, they'll find a way around it. Just like they did in America 200 years ago.

<<< Stan: I think you may be swallowing too much propoganda. >>>

Indeed. It amazes me that some people really do think the EU rules over us. It is ludicrous, when you think about it.

Ultimately a lot of law maybe through EU regulations, but Britain plays a part in making these laws, and signs up to these laws. If the British government wanted to opt out of EU metrication laws it could easily do so - and it has done for the 'pint' and 'mile'

re (Andy): "Indeed. It amazes me that some people really do think the EU rules over us. It is ludicrous, when you think about it"

REPLY: Andy, see if you would accept this analogy.

Britain pre-E.U. could be compared to living in a comfortable detached house, with your family, and a nice garden. In the same road were other houses of different sizes and in various states of decoration, tidiness etc.

The E.U., as it has developed over the years, may similarly be likened to a very large mansion, run broadly on the lines of a commune, in which decisions are made by a committee of all those who live there, everyone having an equal say from Mr Britain down to Mr Malta, and sharing the same capital assets and bank account.

I'd rather keep my detached house and maintain good relations with other neighbours in my road who live in their different houses, than move into that big mansion with the ring of 12 golden stars flying over it

"I think you may be swallowing too much propoganda. People often talk of EU laws. There aren't any."


EU **LEGISLATION** and **DIRECTIVES**. That is what I am talking about.
The various treaties enact new rules and regulations. Each one may be adjusted by the horse-trading that each EU state carries out prior to its enactment. I suggest you read about one of them. Pick maastricht

"No can be convicted of an offence under "EU law"."

People can be convicted of laws enacted by EU legislation. The law in question may be a "British" one, but it was not passed by a "British" parliament.
Aside from legislation - can you remember what the EU did when BSE was found in the UK?


"They can only be convicted of offences under the law of the member state. The law of the member state may be its implementation of a directive "

Again - laws NOT PASSED or PROPOSED or PUT INTO A MANIFESTO of the UK's parliament or parliamentary party.

"but its up to that member state to decide how to implement it. It may or may not involve a criminal offence but the EU doesn't prescribe this."

Yes it does, however I do get your point that whereas other european countries flout the rules a lot, the UK rigidly enforces them.

"The UK and any other member state remains a member of the EU at the behest of its citizens."

How?
Name one of the big three that advocates withdrawal?

Or

What was the last date of the last referendum to ensure the UK "remains a member of the EU at the behest of its citizens."


"That after all is what UKIP is trying to do."

So do the greens, the BNP and the communists. Did you not know that we lived in a 3-party democracy?

"The logic of this is that we still have the same rights, protection and self determination with the UK as a member of the EU as not."

That is quite astonishing.
Ask a small business, a fisherman, a butcher, a farmer, a libertarian, a patriot, a democrat about that!

"The EU may be a large and beurocratic organisation but it isn't oppressive. It doesn't have the muscle apart from anything else."

Are we talking about the same thing here?
It is single handedly the most riskiest political experiment the UK has ever been involved with?
Why do you think auditors employed by the EU get sacked by the EU when they mention the small case of provable fraud?
What other organisation could sack its 'board members' only to see them back in their seats on Monday morning?
What other organisation could make Neil Kinnock more powerful now than he ever was in opposition!

These are the same people, the same organisation that banned duty free (because it showed 'borders') yet voted to allow EC employees to continue purchasing duty free!!

Did anyone here know that there's a special shop in Brussels that sells duty free goods but only to EC employees?

"Stan: You can write to them. I don't know the details of the process but it is there."

You CANNOT write to the commission. You are referring to the "Parliament". The commission is not a listening entity within this supra-government like your local MP surgery would be.

Bud: "Mark my word, they'll find a way around it. Just like they did in America 200 years ago."

Bud, are you aware that there have been many referenda in the EU that have produced a "no" vote only to have that "no" vote turned over in subsequent "let me ask you again..." referenda?

Think of it in the same way as Bart and Lisa repeating "Can we go to itchy and scratchy-land?" to Homer over and over again. ;-)

"Ultimately a lot of law maybe through EU regulations, but Britain plays a part in making these laws, and signs up to these laws."

Don't be naive, Andy. As a borderline eurosceptic YOU know that Britain DOES NOT play a part. Tony Blair might - but BRITAIN does not.
If you don't believe me, check out Labour's last election manifesto.
In fact check out their new one next week and see what happens over the next 4 yrs (yes, gloomily enough, I can see 4 more years of kissing the EU's ar*e on almost everything).

Tell you what - gice it a try. I usually do the "ask the person next to you" thing so try this one:

Ask the person next to you "What do you think of the Common Agriculture policy we've signed up to?"

While you're at it ask them for one example directive from the Maastricht treaty.

And see if they remember "nice" (as in 'neace')





Just out of interest, folks.
Who here has been to Brussels, then to Strasbourgh, sat in a conference meeting room grilling two MEPs in the European Parliament, gone to the E.P. floor itself and wore "translation earphones" to listen to the session, spoken to a general at S.H.A.P.E., watched a presentation at N.A.T.O. all over a two day period?

I only ask because 'your's truly' here has certainly been swallowing all this 'propoganda' while quite clearly ignoring all he learned over those two days. Must be that copy of 'The Sun' I was reading throughout that experience.

Know what I mean?

Get ready for it.............

;-)







(know your enemy)

<<
Ultimately a lot of law maybe through EU regulations, but Britain plays a part in making these laws, and signs up to these laws. If the British government wanted to opt out of EU metrication laws it could easily do so - and it has done for the 'pint' and 'mile'
>>

I wasn't aware of that... I heard that these two were the only exemptions the EU was willing to give (as well as acre mabye??)


I agree that the EU, as it is right now, is not much of a threat to the sovereignty of Britain or any other country. BUT, the trend has been for the power of the EU to increase over time, not decrease. No one is arguing that the EU is oppressing anyone or any country, but it is building up the ability to do so.

The European Court of Justice cannot prosecute individuals for a breach of EU directives or any other over-arching European based regulations.

Individual citizens (which is what we were talking about) can only be prosecuted by the legal system of the member state they are in at the time of the offence and under their own laws.

I don't dispute the widening of powers of the EU into areas not purely economic and people are entitled to argue that the EU of today isn't quite how it started, but the forum for common interest and establishment of a level playing field is bound to involve compromises.

I do however take issue with the "get Britain out of the EU" brigade when they pretend all will be well if we replace it with individual treaties. A treaty is mutually binding. Whatever the basis for it we would have to kowtow to the interests of European member states who would still be bound by EU obligations.

As for the BSE crisis, Steve what do you think would have happened had Britain not been a member of the EU? Would Europe have ignored the potentially contaminated beef and allowed its import? How would that have made it any better?

SteveH: "You CANNOT write to the commission ..."

http://europa.eu.int/comm/contact/index_en.htm

http://www.proact-campaigns.net/eucontacts.html

Go and get a reply from Chris Patten then. See if he writes back to you.

"I do however take issue with the "get Britain out of the EU" brigade when they pretend all will be well if we replace it with individual treaties. A treaty is mutually binding. Whatever the basis for it we would have to kowtow to the interests of European member states who would still be bound by EU obligations."

The happiest nation in Europe is Norway, but its not as wealthy as one of the richest countries in the world, Switzerland.
Know what I mean?

The UK is meant to be outside the EU - that's its natural position. Most other members of the EU need to be in the EU for quite the opposite reason - they naturally belong there.
My point of view is - I want us out of the EU. Unfortunately if this is not possible I'd like the EU to implode on its own corruption.


<<As for the BSE crisis, Steve what do you think would have happened had Britain not been a member of the EU? Would Europe have ignored the potentially contaminated beef and allowed its import? How would that have made it any better?>>

1) The BSE source was outside the UK
2) If your child is sick would you like your next door neighbour to invite himself in and tell you what you can and cannot do with your child?


-------------

Bud - with respect - the sort of viewpoint you have expressed is too forgiving and accepting with regards to this. Unless the UK wakes up and realises the threats we will get to a point of "no return". A superpower where very little democracy ends up in the might of the individual.

Luckily for "my sort" not only is euroscepticism getting stronger and stronger in the UK, its also getting stronger in countries in Europe too.

SteveH wrote

<<
Go and get a reply from Chris Patten then. See if he writes back to you.
>>

... er Steve, don't you mean Peter Mandelson?

indeed where-as Patten stabbed Thatcher in the back, his successor stabbed .....


Hmmm, better not go there.

;-)

<<<The happiest nation in Europe is Norway, but its not as wealthy as one of the richest countries in the world, Switzerland.
Know what I mean?>>>

As much as I admire Switzerland and Norway for going it alone, these are small countries with very different economies to that of the UK.

<<<The UK is meant to be outside the EU - that's its natural position. Most other members of the EU need to be in the EU for quite the opposite reason - they naturally belong there.>>>

With respect, that is a ridiculous statement! Of course the smaller nations have gained more from the EU, but millions of jobs in Britain are dependant on it being a member of the EU.

<<<Luckily for "my sort" not only is euroscepticism getting stronger and stronger in the UK, its also getting stronger in countries in Europe too.>>>

The problem with "your sort" is summed up in your comment above. You somehow don't consider the UK to be a country in Europe.

Thats where we differ from the Norwegians and the Swiss.

If we are to make a go of it outside from the EU, we need to move on from this outdated attitude of superiority.

<<As much as I admire Switzerland and Norway for going it alone, these are small countries with very different economies to that of the UK.>>

And the UK has a different economy (cycle) to the EU!

<<<The UK is meant to be outside the EU - that's its natural position. Most other members of the EU need to be in the EU for quite the opposite reason - they naturally belong there.>>>

<<With respect, that is a ridiculous statement! Of course the smaller nations have gained more from the EU, but millions of jobs in Britain are dependant on it being a member of the EU.>>

I was talking about the warfare that ravaged europe. We always ended up ending them, not starting them!!
And btw "but millions of jobs in Britain are dependant on it being a member of the EU" should be DESPITE being a member. Don't fall for that britainineurope line!

<<<Luckily for "my sort" not only is euroscepticism getting stronger and stronger in the UK, its also getting stronger in countries in Europe too.>>>

<<The problem with "your sort" is summed up in your comment above. You somehow don't consider the UK to be a country in Europe. >>

Excuse me for laying that trap (sincerely and honestly). It was deliberately planted BECAUSE ordinary Brits see Europe as "over there". I changed "on the continent" to see if it would get picked up.
Don't try and pretend that people don't say things like "I'm travelling to Europe" or the fact that BBC Radio1 has a "europe correspondant".


<<Thats where we differ from the Norwegians and the Swiss.
If we are to make a go of it outside from the EU, we need to move on from this outdated attitude of superiority.>>

Speak for yourself.
I want Britain out regardless of any superiority or inferiority complex!

<<<And btw "but millions of jobs in Britain are dependant on it being a member of the EU" should be DESPITE being a member. Don't fall for that britainineurope line!>>>

Not sure quite what you mean there. I am talking about the millions of jobs at foreign companies based here. Would all the japanese car manufacturers be using Britain as their european manufacturing base if we weren't in the EU?

<<<Excuse me for laying that trap (sincerely and honestly). It was deliberately planted BECAUSE ordinary Brits see Europe as "over there". I changed "on the continent" to see if it would get picked up.
Don't try and pretend that people don't say things like "I'm travelling to Europe" or the fact that BBC Radio1 has a "europe correspondant".>>>

I suspected the trap, but stepped into it deliberately because as you say, many people do see it like this and this is a ridiculously outdated viewpoint which greatly irritates me. Whatever happens with the EU, we are geographically part of the continent of Europe and our relations with our neighbours are always going to be important for the future.

<<<Speak for yourself.
I want Britain out regardless of any superiority or inferiority complex!>>>

I really would love to see Britain independant of the EU, but I honestly don't think we would survive. We look backwards rather than forwards and until we change this attitude, sadly I think we need the EU to drag us along.

<<Not sure quite what you mean there.>>

BiE lie that 3 million jobs would be lost!

<< I am talking about the millions of jobs at foreign companies based here. Would all the japanese car manufacturers be using Britain as their european manufacturing base if we weren't in the EU?>>

You need to ask yourself why those firms are setting up in the UK and not on "the continent".

"I suspected the trap, but stepped into it deliberately because as you say, many people do see it like this and this is a ridiculously outdated viewpoint which greatly irritates me. Whatever happens with the EU, we are geographically part of the continent of Europe and our relations with our neighbours are always going to be important for the future."

Indeed - but it goes along the line of "of europe" not "in europe" (or however the saying went).
If an American asked where you came from I know how you'd reply and it WOULDN'T be "from europe".

"I really would love to see Britain independant of the EU, but I honestly don't think we would survive."

Our economy is stronger than the other two "non EU" european countries. Why would it get weaker with withdrawal?

" We look backwards rather than forwards and until we change this attitude, sadly I think we need the EU to drag us along."

If the EU is dragging us along, how come we are not following their example by having a stagnant economy and an increasing unemployment rate.

Please don't spread this little secret I found out - but the EU needs us far more than the UK needs the EU.

Ask the Franch or German tax payer how he'd like his net-contribution increased enormously to counter the effect of the loss of cash from the UK.
And that's just ONE example.


I bet that if we ever withdrew we'd have to sign up to a promise that we would gradually stop our net-contribution, in negotiations that get us favourable trading agreements.

Audience: "Dream on, Steve. It ain't gonna happen anyday soon."

SteveH:
"1) The BSE source was outside the UK
2) If your child is sick would you like your next door neighbour to invite himself in and tell you what you can and cannot do with your child?"

Stan:

You misunderstood my point. Whatever the source of the contamination British beef was suspect at the time. If Britain were not a member of the EU the same risks of contamination would have been present since, as the anti-EU brigade keep saying, we would still trade overseas. Once it became known Britain would still have had problems exporting to Europe. The EU wasn't a factor. If anything it may have helped. Remember how reluctant Germany and France were to lift the ban on imports from Britain once our beef had been declared fit again? It was pressure from the EU that made them back down in the end.

SteveH: "The UK is meant to be outside the EU - that's its natural position. Most other members of the EU need to be in the EU for quite the opposite reason - they naturally belong there.
My point of view is - I want us out of the EU. Unfortunately if this is not possible I'd like the EU to implode on its own corruption."

Stan: I see. So you think that most other member states belong in a corrupt EU? Where's you're fondness of Europeans in all that?

To see why corrupt E.U. countries belong in a corrupt E.U., check out the international corruption index using the URLs below.

The United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries - and other Protestant countries - naturally come out top, as in, for example, this quote: 'Countries with a score of higher than 9, with very low levels of perceived corruption, are rich countries, namely Finland, Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden'.

As one moves across to continental, Catholic Europe and beyond that to Asia and Africa, the degree of corruption, bribery etc. rises rapidly.

We see the importation of corrupt practices from abroad in the Birmingham (Labour Party) postal vote scandal, for example:


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Nine out of ten developing countries urgently need practical support to fight corruption, highlights new index

The Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2003 charts levels of corruption in 133 countries. Seven out of ten countries score less than 5 out of a clean score of 10, while five out of ten developing countries score less than 3 out of 10

London, 7 October 2003

arabic chinese gb deutsch English español français russian


Download MS Word version
Download pdf version


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Please scroll down or click on the following sections:

Statement by Peter Eigen, Chairman of Transparency International,
on the launch of the Corruption Perceptions Index 2003

Table 1: Transparency International Corruption Perceptions Index 2003

Table 2: Survey sources for the CPI 2003

Frequently asked questions about the CPI 2003

Media contacts

Background paper | Framework Document 2003 (PDF)
Sources contributing to the assessment of each country (PDF)

previous indices


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Rich countries must provide practical support to developing country governments that demonstrate the political will to curb corruption. In addition, those countries starting with a high degree of corruption should not be penalised, since they are in the most urgent need of support," said Peter Eigen, Chairman of Transparency International (TI), speaking today on the launch of the TI Corruption Perceptions Index 2003 (CPI).

"The new CPI points to high levels of corruption in many rich countries as well as poorer ones, making it imperative that developed countries enforce international conventions to curb bribery by international companies, and that private businesses fulfil their obligations under the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, namely to stop bribing public officials around the world," said Eigen. But, he continued, "nine out of ten developing countries score less than 5 against a clean score of 10 in the TI CPI 2003. Their governments must implement results-oriented programmes to fight corruption, but they also urgently require practical help tailored to the needs of their national anti-corruption strategies."

For these strategies to succeed, said Eigen, "such support must go hand in hand with international backing for civil society to monitor the implementation of these strategies". In addition, he insisted, "donor countries and international financial institutions should take a firmer line, stopping financial support to corrupt governments and blacklisting international companies caught paying bribes abroad."

"Seven out of ten countries score less than 5 out of a clean score of 10 in the TI CPI 2003, which reflects perceived levels of corruption among politicians and public officials in 133 countries," explained Eigen. "Five out of ten developing countries scores less than 3 out of 10, indicating a high level of corruption." The annual CPI, published today by TI, the leading international non-governmental organisation devoted to fighting corruption worldwide, reflects the perceptions of business people, academics and risk analysts, both resident and non-resident. The statistical work was co-ordinated by Prof. Dr Johann Graf Lambsdorff at Passau University in Germany, advised by a group of international specialists.

Corruption is perceived to be pervasive in Bangladesh, Nigeria, Haiti, Paraguay, Myanmar, Tajikistan, Georgia, Cameroon, Azerbaijan, Angola, Kenya, and Indonesia, countries with a score of less than 2 in the new index. Countries with a score of higher than 9, with very low levels of perceived corruption, are rich countries, namely Finland, Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden.

Some changes highlighted in the CPI were identified by Peter Eigen. "On the basis of data from sources that have been consistently used for the index, improvements since last year's index can be observed for Austria, Belgium, Colombia, France, Germany, Ireland, Malaysia, Norway, and Tunisia. Noteworthy examples of a worsening are Argentina, Belarus, Chile, Canada, Israel, Luxembourg, Poland, USA, and Zimbabwe."

"There are many countries, where there is now a high-level political commitment to fight corruption," said TI Vice Chair Rosa Inés Ospina Robledo, speaking in Bogota, Colombia, today. "In such countries, international support, especially for transparency in public contracting, is essential to build solid foundations for removing corruption from government and public services. In particular, the private sector must take full responsibility for its conduct at home and abroad, and take urgent steps to stop paying bribes. To make this a reality, TI and private sector companies have worked together to develop a set of Business Principles for Countering Bribery, advocating anti-bribery training and codes of conduct within companies. TI has also implemented no-bribes Integrity Pacts in public contracting."

"We can begin to close the rift between developing and rich countries, which was so evident at the WTO meeting in Cancún, Mexico, last month," said Peter Eigen, "if WTO negotiations are launched on a multilateral framework agreement on Transparency in Government Procurement (TGP). For less developed countries, it is in their own interests to introduce transparency measures in public procurement because the waste of their own scarce resources is at stake. If corruption in procurement is not contained, poverty will grow."

"Today's CPI demonstrates that it is not only poor countries where corruption thrives," said Laurence Cockcroft, Chairman of TI (UK), in London today. "Levels of corruption are worryingly high in European countries such as Greece and Italy, and in potentially rich oil-rich countries such as Nigeria, Angola, Azerbaijan, Indonesia, Kazakhstan, Libya, Venezuela and Iraq."

"To turn around this situation so that ordinary people share in the oil wealth of their country, TI is campaigning, along with other NGOs, for international oil companies to publish what they pay to governments and state oil companies. This will enable citizens and civil society organisations in countries such as Nigeria, Angola, Iraq, Indonesia and Kazakhstan to have a clearer picture of state revenues," said Cockcroft, a member of TI's international Board of Directors, "so that they can call their governments to account where the state budget is not used to improve scarce public resources, but instead disappears on expensive vanity projects or into the secret offshore bank accounts of politicians and public officials."

"Political parties, the courts and the police were identified as the three areas most in need of reform in TI's Global Corruption Barometer, a survey of the general public in 48 countries, launched in July 2003," said Cockcroft. "This indicates a serious lack of confidence in those in authority worldwide."

The CPI 2003, published today, is a poll of polls, reflecting the perceptions of business people, academics and risk analysts, both resident and non-resident. First launched in 1995, this year's CPI draws on 17 surveys from 13 independent institutions. A rolling survey of polls taken between 2001 and 2003, the CPI 2003 includes only those countries that feature in at least three surveys. "It is important to emphasise that the CPI, even with 133 countries, is only a snapshot," said Peter Eigen. "There is not sufficient data on other countries, many of which are likely to be very corrupt."

The CPI 2003 complements TI's Bribe Payers Index (BPI), which addresses the propensity of companies from top exporting countries to bribe in emerging markets. The BPI 2002, published on 14 May 2002, revealed high levels of bribery by firms from Russia, China, Taiwan and South Korea, closely followed by Italy, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Japan, USA and France - although many of these countries signed the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, which outlaws bribery of foreign public officials.

"The OECD Convention came into force in 1999, but we are still awaiting the first prosecutions in the courts of the 35 signatory countries," said Eigen. "The governments of these countries have an obligation to developing countries to investigate and prosecute the companies within their jurisdictions that are bribing. Their bribes and incentives to corrupt public officials and politicians are undermining the prospects of sustainable development in poorer countries."

For full details of the TI CPI 2003, visit http://www.transparency.org/cpi/index.html#cpi

Thank you Tony for showing this, it's quite interesting.

I notice that the major players in the EU, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain aren't too bad, they are quite close in ranking to the UK (2004 index). Peter Eigen also observes:

"... a fall in corruption was perceived in Austria, Botswana, Czech Republic, El Salvador, France, Gambia, Germany, Jordan, Switzerland, Tanzania, Thailand, Uganda, United Arab Emirates and Uruguay."

I also notice it's an index of "percieved" corruption so it's not a reliable indicator of actual corruption. A high score could reflect complacency.

Tony:

To see why corrupt E.U. countries belong in a corrupt E.U., check out the international corruption index using the URLs below.

The United Kingdom and the Scandinavian countries - and other Protestant countries - naturally come out top, as in, for example, this quote: 'Countries with a score of higher than 9, with very low levels of perceived corruption, are rich countries, namely Finland, Iceland, Denmark, New Zealand, Singapore and Sweden'.

As one moves across to continental, Catholic Europe and beyond that to Asia and Africa, the degree of corruption, bribery etc. rises rapidly.

We see the importation of corrupt practices from abroad in the Birmingham (Labour Party) postal vote scandal, for example:
--------------------------
Buck:

Tony, why introduce religion into it? Did the ICI have any data regarding this?

As to the situation in Birmingham. This is one incident that supports your argument regarding importation of corrupt practices. It is probable that one could find incidents of corrupt practices in the UK that had no connection with imported practices. It is also probable that one could find instances where the British have been guilty of corrupt practices in other countries.

Please note that I am not disputing your assertions, just your method of arriving at conclusions. :->