Voice of joy and sunshine
26th May 2003
If we're talking about stupid legislation, then I see your tires and raise you water:
EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove [that water could prevent dehydration].
Producers of bottled water are now forbidden by law from making the claim and will face a two-year jail sentence if they defy the edict, which comes into force in the UK next month.
Last night, critics claimed the EU was at odds with both science and common sense. Conservative MEP Roger Helmer said: “This is stupidity writ large.
Ukip MEP Paul Nuttall said the ruling made the “bendy banana law” look “positively sane”.
He said: “I had to read this four or five times before I believed it. It is a perfect example of what Brussels does best. Spend three years, with 20 separate pieces of correspondence before summoning 21 professors to Parma where they decide with great solemnity that drinking water cannot be sold as a way to combat dehydration.
“Then they make this judgment law and make it clear that if anybody dares sell water claiming that it is effective against dehydration they could get into serious legal bother.
EU regulations, which aim to uphold food standards across member states, are frequently criticised.
Rules banning bent bananas and curved cucumbers were scrapped in 2008 after causing international ridicule.
Prof Hahn, from the Institute for Food Science and Human Nutrition at Hanover Leibniz University, said the European Commission had made another mistake with its latest ruling.
“What is our reaction to the outcome? Let us put it this way: We are neither surprised nor delighted.
That's about marketing bottled water as a way to combat disease, and even though the decision may sound funny to people who don't understand what dehydration is, such as nationalist politicians and journalists, drinking bottled water could actually cause dehydration.
Huffardo;5594091That was about time, I don't see why they can't agree on making the union a more solid military alliance. Sure, the UK prefers NATO and the US to decide for them, but they have never wanted to be a part of Europe anyway, so they could be left out as usual. Talks about Nordic military alliances haven't gotten far, and to be honest such an alliance would rely so much on Finland that it wouldn't be funny.
We prefer working with NATO and the US because we don't end up being the only people involved and there is a workable command structure in place, unlike proposed EU ops.
I'm not much for obedience to any higher power, but loyalty, sure. If the European Union only was better run and more selective, I wouldn't be opposed to a federation, but closer ties with countries that are first and foremost known for organized crime aren't very appealing.
Heh. I hope you mean Italy/Spain/France rather than Germany/UK! =p
The EU does need to fundamentally change the way it is governed, it is neither democratic nor functional and clearly it is also incapable of keeping things in order despite the insane bureaucratic machine we pay for. Maybe then a European government could feel like your government, although I must say I would prefer if it wasn't as full with idiots.
If the EU was more of a federation which asked and facilitated countries opting into cooperating on particular issues, and concentrated on trade (which is truth be told the major strength of the EU, having significantly more economic power than the US) then I think virtually everybody in the UK would accept it. We cannot accept a corrupt superstate which is trampling over our government and freedoms.
That said, the people of the UK have some sort of major former empire-complex in the way they approach the European Union. Everything should be decided by the UK, or not at all, and that is just stupidly nationalistic.
If we weren't constantly getting screwed by the EU collectively and by prominent nations in it individually we might have some enthusiasm for the project.
Look at it from Britain's point of view. We have the 6th largest economy in the world, an established first class military with a strong expeditionary capability and a worldwide set of bases the EU has been making noises about considering paying us to maintain so they could get involved on the world stage when required. Plus a seat on the UN Security council, and a small but potent enough arsenal of nuclear munitions functioning as an effective deterrent and making us and Europe immune to nuclear blackmail.
We gain what from the EU? The EU asks much of us, but offers little.
If the EU was assisting us with problems we have such as Argentina sabre rattling about the falklands now we stand to get some oil out of the place then it's possible people might see some benefit to the EU. As it is, it's a great benefit to smaller nations who couldn't otherwise take a place on the world stage, but we aren't really one of those smaller nations.