Brexit Penny Dropping?

[woolley]

38 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

The point is that as a member of the EU the UK didn't have the choice to sell wine in pints should it have wanted to.
Thats  the principle involved and it goes much wider and affects far more fundamental sovereign issues than just weights and measures.

 

17 minutes ago, manxman1980 said:

As has already been pointed out the UK could probably have negotiated an exception for the UK market if there was actually a reason too.

You could have omitted all of that stuff about pints of wine. Of course that's really neither here nor there. As VoR says, it's the principle involved. Why on earth should a sovereign state have to "negotiate an exception" to do something if it wishes to do it? It isn't simply trivia like this.

UK had to have opt outs to keep sterling, stay out of Schengen and the right to set its own employment and social legislation. Such opt outs are in the gift of the EU, and not automatic. The Isle of Man even had to have the UK negotiate a derogation to keep meat imports out of the local market, and even that was withdrawn eventually and there was nothing that could be done about it. All while the Island wasn't even a full EU member. Like so many other issues, it is none of Europe's business.

The entire charade is ludicrous, and it becomes more consuming all the time as QMV embraces a wider range of policy areas. Such a state of affairs only exists within the European Union. Nowhere else in the world behaves in this sinister fashion. Free trade absolutely, but not at any price. People are brainwashed simply to accept the hegemony of the EU as normal and benign. It really isn't. It's an aberration.

[manxman1980]

@woolley

The answer as to why is once again linked with trade agreements.

As for the Isle of Man, the issue is that we are a crown dependency and allow the UK to handle our foreign affairs.

I would agree with you that the Islands relationship with the EU was very unsatisfactory.  Primarily because it was outsourced via the UK and we had/have no voice in Westminster nor in the EU parliament. 

[woolley]

1 minute ago, manxman1980 said:

@woolley

The answer as to why is once again linked with trade agreements.

 

It's unsatisfactory. There are trade agreements, and even trading blocs, all over the world that don't come with anything like the intrusion of the EU. Ever closer union is the driving force. Trade is just the costume it wears.

[Declan]

16 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

 

My point was if we can be bullied into changing our measuring systems, trivial as you may see that, where does it end?

 

But we weren't bullied into changing. Britain made a conscious decision to move to metric in the 60's - well before it join the EU. In fact they'd been legal since 1897. 

Clearly, as part of the negotiations to join up with the EU we agreed to use the common measurement system of the community. But the decision to join was ratified by a refrendum. 

AND most people seem happy with the decision to move to metric...

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/choice-on-units-of-measurement-markings-and-sales/outcome/choice-on-units-of-measurement-consultation-response

Overall preference	Number of responses	Percentage of responses
Status quo (keep metric as primary unit of measurement)	81,867	81.1%
More choice (open to increased use of imperial measures)	870	0.9%
Purely metric (completely metric system)	17,798	17.6%
Purely imperial (completely imperial system)	403	0.4%
Total	100,938	100%

 

Edited December 29, 2023 by Declan

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, Declan said:

But we weren't bullied into changing. Britain made a conscious decision to move to metric in the 60's - well before it join the EU. In fact they'd been legal since 1897. 

Clearly, as part of the negotiations to join up with the EU we agreed to use the common measurement system of the community. But the decision to join was ratified by a refrendum. 

AND most people seem happy with the decision to move to metric...

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/choice-on-units-of-measurement-markings-and-sales/outcome/choice-on-units-of-measurement-consultation-response

Overall preference	Number of responses	Percentage of responses
Status quo (keep metric as primary unit of measurement)	81,867	81.1%
More choice (open to increased use of imperial measures)	870	0.9%
Purely metric (completely metric system)	17,798	17.6%
Purely imperial (completely imperial system)	403	0.4%
Total	100,938	100%

 

Alright then, bullied into  being forced to display imperial measures in smaller font than the metric ones.

There are much much bigger hills to choose to die on

Anyway as previously said it’s not about weights and measures per se it’s about being able to make your own legislation without having to ask permission or  without  “negotiating “

[HeliX]

1 minute ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Alright then, bullied into  being forced to display imperial measures in smaller font than the metric ones.

There are much much bigger hills to choose to die on

Anyway as previously said it’s not about weights and measures per se it’s about being able to make your own legislation without having to ask permission or  without  “negotiating “

But the Government will only ever use it for pissy stupid little laws that no rational human gives a fuck about, because EU laws are already sensible.

[The Voice of Reason]

Marmalade could be renamed as what in the EU, under plans to revise the “breakfast directives”, which will impact UK exporters?

[HeliX]

8 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Marmalade could be renamed as what in the EU, under plans to revise the “breakfast directives”, which will impact UK exporters?

Well thank fuck we lost the freedom to live and work in 27 countries in case we had to rename marmalade. Except our Govt is considering copying it anyway.

[Declan]

29 minutes ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Marmalade could be renamed as what in the EU, under plans to revise the “breakfast directives”, which will impact UK exporters?

Pity we're not at the breakfast table to object then. 

[The Voice of Reason]

21 minutes ago, Declan said:

Pity we're not at the breakfast table to object then. 

Yeh like that would work.

We'd be toast.

[The Voice of Reason]

1 hour ago, HeliX said:

But the Government will only ever use it for pissy stupid little laws that no rational human gives a fuck about, because EU laws are already sensible.

If the EU is so bloody brilliant why don’t you go and live there?
 

Oh hang on a minute , I forgot, you can’t  🤗

[The Voice of Reason]

4 hours ago, HeliX said:

But the Government will only ever use it for pissy stupid little laws that no rational human gives a fuck about, because EU laws are already sensible.

Oh really?
 

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

 

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed for a previous ruling against a claim that water can prevent dehydration.:

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

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.

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.

“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.

The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible."

German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.

They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.

They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.

However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.

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.

“The European Commission is wrong; it should have authorised the claim. That should be more than clear to anyone who has consumed water in the past, and who has not? We fear there is something wrong in the state of Europe.”

 

[manxman1980]

@The Voice of Reason

I suspect that there is more to the story than you have shared.

The answer, I suspect, relates to the word "substantial".  You can in fact kill yourself by drinking too much water through "water intoxication".  Cases are rare but do happen and it could be that "EU bureaucrats" took the stance that people may drink "substantial" amounts of water leading to more cases of water intoxication and possibly leaving routes for legal action.

I think most people know that dehydration can be prevented/treated by drinking water but it has to be the right amount at the right time.

[manxman1980]

@The Voice of Reason

Another thought...

Would you allow Coca Cola to use a slogan suggesting that regular Coke can be used to treat hypoglycemia?

It I true, a hypo can be treated by giving a sugary drink like Coke (followed by something more substantial containing carbohydrates such as a sandwich).  

Drinking Coke does, however, carry other health risks and can actually lead to diabetes too.

Whilst one statement may be true, it may not be appropriate to allow its use in a promotional way.

[HeliX]

4 hours ago, The Voice of Reason said:

Oh really?
 

EU bans claim that water can prevent dehydration

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed yesterday after banning drink manufacturers from claiming that water can prevent dehydration.

 

Brussels bureaucrats were ridiculed for a previous ruling against a claim that water can prevent dehydration.:

EU officials concluded that, following a three-year investigation, there was no evidence to prove the previously undisputed fact.

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.

“The euro is burning, the EU is falling apart and yet here they are: highly-paid, highly-pensioned officials worrying about the obvious qualities of water and trying to deny us the right to say what is patently true.

“If ever there were an episode which demonstrates the folly of the great European project then this is it.”

NHS health guidelines state clearly that drinking water helps avoid dehydration, and that Britons should drink at least 1.2 litres per day.

The Department for Health disputed the wisdom of the new law. A spokesman said: “Of course water hydrates. While we support the EU in preventing false claims about products, we need to exercise common sense as far as possible."

German professors Dr Andreas Hahn and Dr Moritz Hagenmeyer, who advise food manufacturers on how to advertise their products, asked the European Commission if the claim could be made on labels.

They compiled what they assumed was an uncontroversial statement in order to test new laws which allow products to claim they can reduce the risk of disease, subject to EU approval.

They applied for the right to state that “regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration” as well as preventing a decrease in performance.

However, last February, the European Food Standards Authority (EFSA) refused to approve the statement.

A meeting of 21 scientists in Parma, Italy, concluded that reduced water content in the body was a symptom of dehydration and not something that drinking water could subsequently control.

Now the EFSA verdict has been turned into an EU directive which was issued on Wednesday.

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.

“The European Commission is wrong; it should have authorised the claim. That should be more than clear to anyone who has consumed water in the past, and who has not? We fear there is something wrong in the state of Europe.”

 

How come you missed out the end of the article?

 

Quote

 

Prof Brian Ratcliffe, spokesman for the Nutrition Society, said dehydration was usually caused by a clinical condition and that one could remain adequately hydrated without drinking water.

He said: “The EU is saying that this does not reduce the risk of dehydration and that is correct.

“This claim is trying to imply that there is something special about bottled water which is not a reasonable claim.”

 

The actual tested claim was:

"The regular consumption of significant amounts of water can reduce the risk of development of dehydration and of concomitant decrease of performance."

The British Soft Drinks Association opined:

"The European Food Safety Authority has been asked to rule on several ways of wording the statement that drinking water is good for hydration and therefore good for health. It rejected some wordings on technicalities, but it has supported claims that drinking water is good for normal physical and cognitive functions and normal thermoregulation."

 

The voice of shite more like.