Forgot to turn off your coffee machine?

[Bazj]

Maybe the lies are more believable than some of the actual nonsense that Brussels/Strasbourg actually does come up with!

 

I mean until you actually see it in the paper or on the news; would anyone really believe that every month, the entire corrupt edifice packs its bags and moves countries at a cost of millions of euros a year?

[P J]

It does make some strange decisions Baz, and I am sure there are some downsides to membership.  But why do the anti EU media have to lie about what it does?  Why are they making up nonsense dating back almost 2 decades?  They get away with it as some people really want it to be true, like the Peppa Pig scandal.  Do you really think its ok to spout any form of nonsense if it suits your own agenda?  UKIP MEPs are costing us a packet and doing nothing at all for it  yet you accept this.

[Bazj]

I accept it because I believe that the UK should exit the EU immediately.... not waiting until Cameron has supposedly tried to re-negotiate membership....

 

This country joined what was supposed to be a trading partnership back in the 70's and if you ask most people who voted back then, they would say that was what they voted for, but they didn't vote for the EU the way it has turned out; the laws, the interference in nations sovereignty, the bailing out of former communist countries

 

If the EU was as it was originally sold; a trading partnership, I personally would be all for it....

 

The people who voted for it originally were lied to because we have since learned over the past decades that the federal state was always the true intention.... so maybe the lies go further back than just a couple of decades. Spouting lies is part of a politicians mantra; that is what they do.... ever heard of a manifesto? Manifesto is another word for "Great big document full of lies to get us into power" they all do it....

 

Maybe I just like the way UKIP lie more than I do the Tories, Labour.... not even going to bother mentioning Lib Dums as they will be smaller than the greens after the next election

[P J]

but your power shutdown on any new coffee maker you may purchase will still be optional and not thrust upon you by EU Diktat.

[P J]

and I can still buy you a pint of shandy down the pub, despite reports to the contrary

[Bazj]

and I can still buy you a pint of shandy down the pub, despite reports to the contrary

 

I'll hold you to that one!!

[P J]

we can check out the truth behind the barmaids clothing law whilst we are at it lol

[observer]

Who's claiming that these nonsense claims about EU regulations are needed to convince folk we need to leave the EU?  We can start with a few fundamental facts: 1) the free movement of labour throughout the EU, is good enough for most and 2) Membership of the ECHR Treaty is a condition of EU membership.

[P J]

absolutely nothing to do with the original post but nice try.  If there is no need to lie why keep doing it?

[observer]

Well you've been waxing on about how good the EU is and how the press make up these stories; as if these stories condition people's view of the EU. Where's "the lie"?

[P J]

I haven't been saying how good the EU is, I have been pointing out how many lies are told about it and how some people are too eager to believe the nonsense.  Where's the lie? are you joking?  How many cows have you seen in nappies lately?  I'm off to Asda now and will check a few bananas for curviness too.

[observer]

Seems it's you making up these nonsense stories, just to give yourself something to knock down.  Still, saves defending the free movement of labour policy or the transfer of the parliament between Brussels and Strasbourg - or is that made up too? !

[P J]

No the freedom to live and work throughout the EU is true and is welcomed and done by well over 2 million Brits. 

 

As for me making up these stories, desperate and wrong again.  Here are just a few quotes.

 

Eurocrats call time on light ale 

(Daily Mail 11 May 2005)

Bureaucrats in Brussels want to force British brewers to change the name of light ale. They claim drinkers could be misled into thinking the beer is a low-calorie or low-alcohol ‘lite’ drink… Opposing the move is London Tory MEP John Bowis, who said yesterday: “It is totally intolerable that a traditional British ale should be threatened by a piece of bureaucracy like this.”

Hands off our light ale 

(Daily Express 12 May 2005)

A battle was brewing in Brussels last night to protect the name of light ale from Euro-legislators. New laws are being drafted to crack down on misleading descriptions on food and drink labels. And the European Commission fears that the word “light” could suggest the product is less fattening. Conservative MEP John Bowis is leading moves to vote the plans down… “We are fighting this because light ale is likely to be caught in the net, even though the use of the word “light” in that case relates to the colour and character of the beer, not to any claims that it is less fattening.”

The term light ale refers to the colour of the beer – that’s why it is also known as pale ale as opposed to dark ale – and not its alcohol or calorie content. Thus, the Commission does not consider light ale to be a health or nutrition claim. In this particular case, however, it would be up to the British government to determine whether light ale fell within the scope of the legislation, still to be approved by member states (including the UK) and the European Parliament.

The European Commission is keen to ensure that consumers are better informed about the food and drink they buy, and are not misled by unscrupulous manufacturers who slap misleading slogans on their products. For example, the term “90% fat free” is misleading because it implies the product is low fat, when the fat content (10%) is in fact rather high. So, too, is the claim that a product will “reduce calorie intake” – especially if you then eat cake. These claims would indeed be banned under the proposal, while others, such as those indicating a product is good for your heart, will need be backed up scientifically, a move supported by industry and consumer groups alike.

 

Hands off our barmaids’ boobs 

(The Sun 4 August 2005)

The EU has declared a crackpot war on busty barmaids – by trying to ban them from wearing low-cut tops. Po-faced penpushers have deemed it a HEALTH HAZARD for bar girls to show too much cleavage. And in a daft directive that will have drinkers choking on their pints, Brussels bureaucrats have ordered a cover-up. They say barmaids run a skin cancer risk if they expose themselves to the sun when they go outside to collect glasses. Last night the move was blasted as an affront. Annie Powell, of real ale group Camra, raged: “It’s just another blatant example of Europe gone mad.”

Barmaids protest at probably the silliest directive in the world 

(The Daily Telegraph 3 August 2005)

BAVARIAN barmaids are to be forced by a European Union directive to cover up, supposedly to protect them from sun. Brewery owners, politicians and most of the women themselves have condemned the legislation as absurd, claiming the “tan ban”, as it has been nicknamed, will destroy a centuries-old tradition. Bavarian barmaids typically dress in a costume known as a “dirndl”, a dress and apron with a tight, low cut top whose figure-hugging effect is enhanced by a short white blouse. Under the EU’s Optical Radiation Directive, employers of staff who work outdoors, including those in Bavaria’s beer gardens, must ensure they cover up against the risk on sunburn. Bavarian bar keepers have been told that the dirndl, generally rather revealing, will have to be replaced as it offers no protection.

New EU rules on optical radiation, due to be voted on by ministers and MEPS (including those from the UK) in September 2005, do not tell people what they can wear, or ban low-cut tops or, heaven forbid, dirndls.
They instead require bosses to assess the risk of skin and retina damage for employees who work in the sun all day. This is a pressing concern, given that in the UK alone there 69,000 new cases of skin cancer diagnosed each year. How the risk to employees will be assessed, and what measures should be taken if there is deemed to be one, will be decided at local level – in the UK by the Health and Safety Executive. Of course, bar managers can always use their common sense by handing out sun cream.

 

The Sun, 18 July 2006, p27

Nutty EU officials want to rename Bombay mix Mumbai mix – to make the snack politically correct. They say the Indian city of Bombay has been called Mumbai since 1995 so the old name could offend because it dates back to colonial rule.

Any suggestion that the EU would get “mixed-up” in renaming this or any other snack is completely ludicrous.  You couldn’t make it up could you? Well, The Sun did.

 

New bus safety rules could ban them (double-decker buses) from Britain’s streets altogether. The British symbol, recognised worldwide, is threatened because double-decker buses are presumed less safe and accessible to disabled passengers than single-deck buses.

(the Daily Telegraph, 9 April 1998, supplement, p3)

This story has appeared in the context of moves within the European Commission, European Parliament and Member States towards improving the protection of bus and coach passengers and making buses more accessible for the disabled. While EU legislation means that buses should become safer to ride in, there are no moves to outlaw the traditional red double-decker bus. Any new regulations will apply only to new buses and coaches and not to existing ones.

 

Myth: The European Commission is planning to outlaw the game of darts in Britain’s publisc houses as it is thought dangerous.

Response: This is not true. There are absolutely no plans of the sort.

 

“Insult to democracy and common sense”

 (Daily Mail, 31 March 2008)

“EU have gone too far Harriet, love”

 (The Sun, 1 April 2008)

 

“Chat up bar girl and pub will be fined”

 (Daily Star, 1 April 2008)

According to the papers, all pub landlords are required to prevent customers from chatting up bar staff or calling them ‘love’ or ‘darling’ and will face unlimited damages if they fail to do so. The Sun blames this on the EU: “[Harriet Harman, the Women and Equalities Minister] has sneaked this new law through without having to bother with parliament because, as you will have guessed, it is the latest rubbish to come out of the EU.” The Mail blasts in its editorial: “Nobody voted for it. It was dreamed up by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels and is now being imposed on Britain without parliamentary debate of division”. The Star is happy to hint at an EU link by stating that “Minister Harriet Harman, 57, has power under the EU to amend discrimination law.”

You’re alright, love. EU rules on equal treatment don’t get into pubs – it’s up to the national authorities, sweetheart, to decide what you can and cannot say in your local. So not to worry, poppet. And we all know, hinny, there’s plenty more nonsense where that one came from!
The aim of EU rules on equal treatment is to protect employees from any forms of discrimination or sexual harassment. However, it is up to the member state to define the specific rules for different places of employment.
Also, in general, the European Commission does not provide legal assessment on individual cases. It is for the national jurisdiction to assess in detail whether discrimination has taken place or not.

 

Should I continue?

[observer]

By all means - none of which have any effect on folks view of the EU, compared to immigration and the Brussels gravy train.

[P J]

Haha  so you accept at least that the anti eu brigade regularly use lies and distortion, can't be that sure of their stances popularity if they need to stoop to such levels.  

[observer]

Think it's the press who are noted for such stories, some of us rely on more stable news from the BBC (which should be luvvie enough even for you!).

[P J]

oh it is

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/6481969.stm

[observer]

Can't be a%%d reading all that, but it sounds like they're myth busting rather than myth creating, so you should be happy with them !

[P J]

there are many myths (lies) to bust, wonder why?

[observer]

Well you've got till May, to do it ! 

[P J]

but why lie?  because the argument isn't as strong as you would like to pretend otherwise why the need? 

[observer]

Lies? Better get used to it; Tories and Labour are now in the full swing of it - so don't pretend they aren't economical with the truth; one man's fact is another man's fiction - get used to it.

[P J]

so if we aren't bounded by truth we can post pretty much anything?

[observer]

That's what they call opinion !

[P J]

I call it lies if its untrue.  Most people do , exceptions being failed or disgraced politicians and other such bottom feeders