British taxpayers are replacing insufficient tax revenues in candidate countries. Crispy Duck follows Bombay Duck into the EU Garbage Can.

August 5th, 2008

British taxpayers are replacing insufficient tax revenues in candidate countries

We have long known that British taxpayers money is used for social engineering purposes by the EU, AND to purchase popular support for the EU itself amongst candidate countries currently those in the Balkans and Turkey.

But that is not all.

At the last meeting of the Budget Control Committee, just before the summer recess (2008), another twist to this issue came up. Taxpayers in net contributor countries - like the UK have even more reason to object to EU funds being given to other countries when their own tax burden is smaller.
Sometimes it is much smaller

Effectively this means British taxpayers are replacing a lack of sufficient tax revenues in those countries. Having failed to raise sufficient tax revenue to meet their own needs the EU is providing the shortfall from EU taxpayers.

To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com

...........................................................................................

Crispy Duck follows Bombay Duck into the EU Garbage Can

Editor, Daily Telegraph
21 July 2008

Sir,

You report that Chinese restaurants are being prevented from serving Crispy Duck because their ovens fail to meet new EU emission standards.

They follow Bombay Duck off the menus of Indian restaurants a few years ago as the EU protected us from supposedly unhygienic production methods.

This latest nonsense provides a classic illustration of a little understood EU technique - ’shared management’. Decoded, that means the EU decides the law and then leaves the member states to carry all the enforcement costs, and take all the stick (they hope).

Shared management often means no management at all. Witness Greek farmers growing olives in the middle of the Aegean Sea.

Here, it tends to mean over-zealous management.

Commissioner Verheugen (enterprise and industry) has recently told me that, if a “directive is not correctly applied in the UK the matter should first be raised with …the competent authority in the UK”. He did not claim any responsibility whatsoever for the consequences of a directive nor for its interpretation by the British government.

So long as we are stuck with the EU, we might usefully look to the French. They have the solution - if you don’t like it, ignore it. They ignore the resultant fines, too

That may not be the British way of doing things, but it works in the Brussels lunatic asylum.

Ashley Mote MEP
Independent, South-East England
Alton, Hants

Footnote : added after receipt of reply on another matter from President Barroso : “Experience has shown that depending on how Member States implement or transpose legislation, the result may be more or less costly.?

To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com