Comments for European Commission in the UK - Euromyths and Letters to the Editor

Comment on EU law does NOT mean UK hospitals have to employ people who do not speak English by uk.admin

uk.admin — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 13:47:54 +0000

The actual facts are in the comments correctly attributed to an EC spokesperson in the article. These of course contradict the headline and the entire premise of the article, that Brussels is “ordering” the UK to do something. There is a proposal for all Member States to discuss, not an order. Neither is there any talk of fines. Most Member States will no doubt put their point of view in forthcoming Council meetings rather than through the press.

Comment on Daily Mail asks “why on earth the EU gives millions in aid ?”. Here’s why: to save lives, keep peace, cut illegal immigration and create new markets by bertiefox

bertiefox — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 12:55:26 +0000

I can’t seem to find a place to make a new comment on this site! Maybe this will do! Rather than posting here where very few people except europhiles will ever read them, why don’t far more of us post to the ‘Comment’ columns of the Daily Mail, Express, Telegraph and so on with the actual facts? I do this all the time but seem to be in a minority of one, on the Daily Mail site? Eventually, the drip, drip, drip of ACCURATE information rather than propaganda, would get through. Please logon and register with newspapers like the Mail and do the same!

Comment on EU law does NOT mean UK hospitals have to employ people who do not speak English by bertiefox

bertiefox — Sun, 29 Apr 2012 11:09:29 +0000

What is the truth about the Daily Mail article today stating that the EU flag must be compulsorily flown at Whitehall and failure to do so will lead to 'fines'. Eric Pickles is reportedly getting his knickers in a twist over this. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2136792/Brussels-orders-EU-flag-fly-Whitehall-day--fined-fail-comply.html I'd love to know the actual facts.

Comment on No ban on EU officials flying Ryanair despite incorrect Sunday Times report by simon.gj

simon.gj — Tue, 27 Mar 2012 18:38:28 +0000

Just a general comment on the work you do and not only this article; The frustration I feel going through this list makes me want to cry. Thank you for doing this and don’t give up, this is why the image of the EU in the UK is so poor. Keep it up.

Comment on Is “Brussels” preventing the UK from introducing tougher capital requirements for banks? by markenglish

markenglish — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 15:04:53 +0000

Many thanks for your message. In fact, there are a number of sites which aim to correct media inaccuracies, on all subjects, not just the EU. One of the best known is http://tabloid-watch.blogspot.com/ For our part, we try to place rebuttals of the most misleading stories at http://blogs.ec.europa.eu/ECintheUK/ - an archive dating back nearly two decades can be found there - and in many cases we write to the media concerned requesting them to publish our letter - they quite often do - or to print a correction (that is less frequent). More rarely, we take cases to the Press Complaints Commission. We also draw the attention of other journalists to errors in the media, by using mail outs to all newsdesks and through Twitter from @EUlondonRep and @EULondonMark.

Comment on Is “Brussels” preventing the UK from introducing tougher capital requirements for banks? by mediumwhite

mediumwhite — Wed, 28 Dec 2011 20:45:54 +0000

Hey, just started reading this. Thanks for putting it up. Really someone is countering the crap we get in the UK press.
Might be better off an EU site though.
It would be really great if someone who knows how it all works would start a personal blog confronting all the euromyths that are published in the UK… a bit like Ben Goldacre did with Bad Science.
Thanks!

Comment on Barmy EU colder fridges’ order will cost us £100m by uk.admin

uk.admin — Thu, 22 Dec 2011 11:54:42 +0000

The issue here is that supermarkets are currently exempt from rules which apply to smaller competitors and some national authorities and stakeholders believe that to be an anomaly which should be addressed. The current exercise is to establish whether that is so and if it is, how to address it in a way that maximises consumer protection without disproportionate regulatory burdens.

1) Which Member States asked the Commission to look into supermarket meat cutting plants?
In a statutory consultation in 2009 a majority of Member States - the UK was not among them but has in general been a strong supporter of strong rules on meat hygiene – and a significant number of private companies and trade associations requested the Commission to look into whether the non-applicability of certain hygiene rules to large deboning and storage plants linked to supermarkets was appropriate.

Their concerns were that the supermarkets’ exemption might either a) lead to health risks and/or b) constitute unfair competition vis-a-vis smaller meat processing companies which are subject to those hygiene rules, despite having a much lower throughput of meat than the supermarkets. This could also disadvantage smaller high street butcher’ shops who use those suppliers and attempt to compete with supermarkets.

2) What form did that request to the Commission take
Responses to the consultation described above, which was a mandatory consultation to review the operation of EU hygiene laws. Both those laws themselves and the need to undertake the consultation and review the legislation were agreed by all Member States including the UK

3) What were the actual concerns raised – simply a lack of red-tape, or some health issues maybe?
The health issues around this are extremely serious. There were, according to the Food Standards Agency, nearly one million cases of food poisoning in the UK in 2009 and 446 deaths. The estimated total cost of this including loss of earnings and NHS costs was £1.7 billion. The Agency estimates that a large proportion of these cases were linked to meat consumption .

4) What form is the fact finding exercise taking?
A questionnaire to Member States and stakeholders and a thorough economic impact assessment of all possible options .

5) What brief/terms of reference does the fact finding exercise have?
To provide evidence enabling the Commission to decide, based on a through analysis, whether it should propose changes to the current rules.

6) What is the ‘protection’ that you think consumers may not be receiving?
The whole point of the exercise is to find out whether the rules need to be changed, including for reasons of consumer safety though also potentially because of possible discriminatory economic effects.

7) Once the fact finding is complete, what would the process be to introduce new regulations (or change existing ones)?
There is no assumption at this stage that changes are required. But if so, the Commisison would first undertake a further consultation with Member States and stakeholders based on draft proposals and then having taken into account responses submit those proposals to the European Parliament and to the Member States. EU laws need to be agreed by both the European Parliament and a “qualified” (i.e very large) majority of Member State Ministers in the Council. Or they do not take effect.

8)Are you aware of any safety issues in the UK regarding meat processed by supermarkets?
In general terms it is abundantly clear that there have sometimes been issues regarding meat safety in supermarkets. For example, a Food Standards Agency investigation in 2010 found that 65% of supermarket chickens were contaminated by harmful bacteria. But there is no presumption that issues such as this are linked to the non-application to supermarkets of the rules on storage and processing which apply to non-retail businesses. The whole point of the current exercise is to establish whether the exemption of supermarkets from rules applying to smaller competitors is appropriate, or not.

9) What has been spent and what is expected to be spent on this exercise?
There is no exact figure available but the vast majority of the limited cost would be in staff time. It is a core function of the European Commission, like all national government bodies and all regulatory authorities, to keep rules continuously under review and to see whether they are working. In some cases this leads to modification, in some cases to reinforcement and in others to abolition – for example, the streamlining of hygiene regulations in 2004 allowed 152 previous pieces of piecemeal legislation to be repealed and replaced by three concise and simplified legislative acts. Of course this process has costs, but the economic and human costs of leaving in place either unnecessary red tape or rules that are outdated or too weak and do not provide adequate protection are exponentially higher.

Comment on Brussels has not banned balloons – but existing rules that could save kids’ lives remain by uk.admin

uk.admin — Mon, 19 Dec 2011 16:21:59 +0000

Although we did not "cite" the Daily Mail directly, this piece was written in response to many misleading stories regarding EU legislation on toy safety that had made their way into UK media (print and broadcast) in the week of October 10th. The headlines quoted at the top of the piece were provided as samples of the type of sensationalist story we were addressing. Our explanation makes clear what the reality of the situation is. For further information on EU toy safety please visit: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/toys/index_en.htm

Comment on Brussels has not banned balloons – but existing rules that could save kids’ lives remain by pperrin

pperrin — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 14:55:18 +0000

The daily mail article you cite mention specific toys that will be banned by new legislation, and doesn’t mention balloons being banned at all.
So it seems you are either trying to refute a claim that was never made, or you are refuting something that is actually true.
How much are you paid to write these responses?

Comment on Barmy EU colder fridges’ order will cost us £100m by pperrin

pperrin — Fri, 16 Dec 2011 10:45:09 +0000

I would like some more detail on the content of this letter:-
1) Which member states asked the commission to look into supermarket meat cutting plants?
2) What form did that request to the commission take
3) What were the actual concerns raised – simply a lack of red-tape, or some health issues maybe?
4) What form is the fact finding exercise taking?
5) What brief/terms of reference does the fact finding exercise have?
6) What is the ‘protection’ that you think consumers may not be receiving?
7) Once the fact finding is complete, what would the process be to introduce new regulations (or change existing ones)?
Are you aware of any safety issues in the UK regarding meat processed by supermarkets?

9) What has been spent and what is expected to be spent on this exercise?