| |||||||||||||||
Action Stations - Pens Are Sharper Than Swords
Title
Join an army of letter-writers and complain direct to the people responsible
LETTERS ARE BEST - E-mails get deleted by minions in the office. A letter has to be answered. And it makes them think. It reminds them the Brits are not putting up with EU nonsense any more.
Each topic below includes background notes. They are NOT standard letters. Please use the material to write your own.
So here’s what you do -
* Pick an issue, or an area of interest where you have special knowledge
* Write to the European Commissioners responsible, and tell them what you think
* Demand explanations, answers. Tell them about the damage they have done
* When you get an answer, try to keep the argument going.
* Meanwhile, find a new topic, start another line of attack with a different Commissioner
* Report all this to your local papers
* Get friends and relations to join in.
* Create a letter-writing group.
* Start today.
New Action Stations - 12-15 Added mid February 2009
12 Road Accidents in UK
Commissioner :
Vice President Antonio Tajani
TransportEuropean Commission
rue de la Roi 200
BE-1049 Brussels, Belgium
Antonio.Tajani@ec.europa.eu
Foreign lorry drivers are eight times more likely to be involved in a serious or fatal accident on the UK’s roads than British lorry drivers.
EU laws prevent the UK Government from compelling foreign lorries to fit safety mirrors which would radically cut road accidents in the UK.
A simple device known as a Fresnel lens would eliminate blind spots experienced by foreign drivers unused to driving on the left side of the road, and sitting on the wrong side of their cab.
The value and benefit of these lenses is known to the UK’s Department for Transport, which has handed out nearly 200,000 lenses to left-hand-drive lorries as they arrive at British ports.
But the British Government is powerless to compel foreign drivers to fit them.
As a result, British lives are being put unnecessarily at risk. Last year alone, at least 30 fatalities on British roads involved foreign lorries.
At least some of those accidents were also the result of the lorries themselves not being roadworthy by British standards. Surveys of roadworthiness of foreign lorries on British roads have regularly shown at least 20 percent to be unsafe. Again, the British government is prevented by EU law from enforcing its own standards.
The supposed single market and level playing field, at least in terms of regulations, are seen to be empty nonsense when we cannot even protect British road users from the entirely avoidable dangers of foreign lorries driving on British roads without essential safety equipment and roadworthiness.
By ignoring the facts and doing nothing to eliminate an avoidable loss of life, the EU loses all credibility and authority to act in British interests.
13 Working Time Directive Puts Lives and Jobs at Risk
Commissioners:
Vladimir Spidla
Employment, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities
European Commission
rue de la Roi 200
BE-1049 Brussels, Belgium
Vladimir.Spidla@ec.europa.eu
Androula Vassiliou
Health European Commission
rue de la Roi 200
BE-1049 Brussels, Belgium
Androula.Vassiliou@ec.europa.eu
It was the European Commission’s decision to introduce a directive to tell people how much time they could work each week which finally persuaded at least one entrepreneur that the Commissioners must be certifiably insane.
He was right then, and as the law of unintended consequences kicks in later in 2009, millions of others will realise how right he still is.
People will die because of this directive. That’s how serious it is.
The EU's Working Time Directive (WTD), with a little help from the European Court of Justice (ECJ) and the European Parliament, which approved it in December, is an excellent example of the effect EU interference can have on the UK.
It has been estimated that the WTD will cost the UK economy between £47 and £66 billion, none of which it can afford, especially right now.
Over the years, all manner of EC law has been bent or ignored when the need arose, and usually it has occurred outside the UK. But even the British government ignored the rules to nationalised a bank in 24 hours when it had no choice. So all that is needed to ignore the WTD is the political will.
Meanwhile, the present situation is chaotic, in that enforcement of the directive is currently under review. Commissioners claim to be prepared to respond to comments, so let them flow….
Here are just a few issues of crucial importance.
Medical Services:
The Royal College of Surgeons says the new EU Working Time Directive will be "disastrous" for the NHS when it comes into force in August 2009.
Doctors will be allowed to work a maximum of 48 hours a week, regardless of their experience or an urgent need for their medical skills and knowledge.
John Black, President of the Royal College of Surgeons, has said "There are simply not the surgeons in the UK to fill the gaps when every doctor's hours are cut to a 48 hour per week maximum”
What is worse, junior doctors will not be able to gain enough experience to progress to the highest standards of medical experience and knowledge on so few hours worked each week. It has been estimated that at least 65 hours a week is the minimum required for junior doctors to acquire the necessary essential experience before being promoted.
The impact of the WTD is clear – patients of the future will not be treated by a group of highly skilled and experienced surgeons. Instead, they will be passed around less skilled surgeons with reduced experience. Lives will be at risk.
In America junior doctors work an 80-hour week and the European Commission has agreed to a 61-hour week for doctors in Germany. Why does the UK not have the same opt-out? And why does sleeping at hospital count towards the working hours of a junior doctor, the effect of which is still further to reduce his or her actual working time? While on-call medical cover is essential, it cannot be allowed to damage a doctor’s right to work. This present restriction has been estimated to have reduced the UK’s junior doctor population by almost 4000.
What is needed is an opt-out to safeguard the patient’s interests and to protect the right of junior doctors to become as highly skilled and experienced as their predecessors. Which begs the question why should the WTD apply to medical services at all?
A recent survey for the Association of Surgeons in Training found more than half of trainees felt under pressure to falsify their hours rather than lose the chance to learn, and 80 per cent of respondents would support an opt-out of the WTD to protect their training.
Emergency Services:
At least one Chief Fire Officer has said that the EU’s Working Time Directive will leave his force "unable to provide the necessary cover". Fires will just be left to burn themselves out, regardless of the losses incurred and the damage caused.
The problem will be particularly acute in many rural areas where the population of able-bodied men is limited. This lack of human resources will be made much worse by the WTD because most part-time fire fighters have other jobs. They will have no official time available for fire fighting when emergencies arise.
If they then volunteer they will have no insurance cover and leave themselves and their families totally at risk.
Other essential public services will also be hampered by the WTD. It is already happening.
During the recent cold weather, it was not just the shortage of rock salt that led to some roads not being treated and kept open in the UK. The grit was available, but the working hours of the lorry drivers delivering it from the quarries and spreading it on the roads were restricted. The British government was asked repeatedly by local authorities for permission to relax the restrictions on drivers' hours, but were refused permission under EU rules.
Farmers:
Who is going to tell the cows they cannot be milked, or the cows, ewes and sows that a veterinary surgeon cannot attend after a difficult birth?
Is a fine crop of wheat ready for harvest to be left standing when rain is forecast for tomorrow?
Must the slaughter and plucking of turkeys for Christmas stop after each employee has worked 48 hours, knowing that the carcasses will halve in value afterwards?
Small Businesses:
All small businesses depend heavily on having their small workforce in place and working. An absence of one person can sometimes make a crucial difference to meeting orders and commitments, getting paid and keeping the business going.
So the current statutory requirements on maternity leave, for example, are a disproportionate burden on small businesses, despite their being the backbone of the British enterprise. Right now, with the economy in meltdown, the last thing needed is more firms going out of business.
Yet that is what the EU’s WTD is likely to bring about.
At present, British law does not allow annual leave entitlement to be rolled over from one year to the next. That will now change. Employees on long term sick leave remain entitled to annual statutory holiday, or pay in lieu upon their return to work. However, in future, they will be able to roll that entitlement over as well.
The WDT also allows staff to take all their annual holiday built up while at home as soon as they return to work. In addition, workers who are sacked or leave their job while off ill must be compensated for holidays not taken.
All of which will tend to discourage the employment of people who appear less than exceptionally fit, discourage the employment of women of child-bearing age, encourage the use of strictly short-term project-based contracts of employment, and increase insurance premiums on business risks.
Every small business will be damaged.
14. Enforced Use of Low-Energy Light Bulbs
This issue also concerns the British government, which is driving the EU initiative. So we should also write to:
Minister for Environment
Mr Hilary Benn
Minister
Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs
17 Smith Square
London SW1P 3JR
and to the EU’s Commissioners:
Andris Piebalgs
Energy
European Commission
rue de la Roi 200
BE-1049 Brussels, Belgium
Andris.Piebalgs@ec.europa.eu
Stavros Dimas
Environment
European Commission
rue de la Roi 200
BE-1049 Brussels, Belgium
stavros.dimas@ec.europa.eu
Britain is leading the rest of Europe in forcing us all to switch to nothing but 'low-energy' bulbs, or CFLs (compact fluorescent lamps) by 2012 – just three years away. These bulbs are supposedly going to help save the planet from the global warming which has been so singularly missing in recent days.
While green politicians and their supporters cheer, a close look at the facts suggests this is one of the maddest flights from reality that the ruling elite has ever taken. Lighting represents less than two per cent of all our energy consumption.
Carbon Dioxide Myth
Ministers claim the switch over to low energy alternatives will cut carbon dioxide emissions by around five million tonnes each year. But this is a totally meaningless figure since carbon dioxide (CO2) is not a pollutant. It is a useful gas, so useful that we need it to exist. All plants totally depend on it to survive and produce the oxygen we need. Dinosaurs fed from abundant vegetation because there was at least three times more CO2 in the atmosphere then. Global warming is another totally meaningless and utterly misleading phrase. The world temperature is actually going down, in spite of CO2 emissions shooting upwards, thanks largely to China and India. Added to which, the carbon impact on climate change (if any) is logarithmic, not arithmetic. In a phrase, that means the more change the less effect.
Serious Objections to CFL Light Bulbs
There have been a raft of objections to the ban on ordinary light bulbs.
Health campaigners, including the British Association of Dermatologists, warn that the rapid flicker of CFL energy saving bulb can bring on skin rashes, epilepsy, headaches and migraines, and causes eye strain. Sufferers from Downs Syndrome have complained of skin rashes, and the Health Protection Agency has admitted this can be caused by the ultra-violet light emitted from CFL bulbs without an external protective layer, which in turns reduces the efficiency of the bulb itself.
The harsher light these bulbs give off is cold and unpleasant to many. People also complain CFL bulbs are ugly and not bright enough. The so-called 'equivalent wattages' never matches reality. Another problem is the 'warm up time' required. Whereas an incandescent filament bulb achieves full brightness in a fraction of a second, a CFL may take two minutes or more.
Agencies responsible for the management of care homes in the UK are obliged by law to provide adequate lighting, especially in areas where problems of mobility arise – for example near stairs, doors, corners and so on. Many of these care homes are large old houses converted for multiply occupancy care purposes. They have old and specialist light fittings which cannot easily be changed, and should not be changed if the level of lighting is thus reduced. Any enforced switch to CFL will, in many cases, breach the EU’s own health and safety regulations. The choice for those agencies will then be closure or considerable structural alterations and expense.
Many other issues arise, too. CFL bulbs are expensive, they work badly in cold weather, they are large and bulky and will not fit into many existing light fittings. They emit a faint but audible buzzing noise, to the great irritation of many, and can interfere with electronic gadgets such as mobile phones and TV remote control units.
Then there is their lifespan, because turning CFLs on and off dramatically shortens the working life of the electronic circuits. To work properly they need to be left on for long periods to get up to full brightness at maximum efficiency. Yet most people have lights on, at most, for a few hours at a time. Often they are on for minutes only. If a CFL is switched on and off frequently, it will probably not last any longer than an incandescent lamp. And unlike normal light bulbs which work until they fail, CFLs gradually produce less light as they age.
Added to which, lighting experts and electrical engineers say the proposed change-over is hopelessly impracticable. They also point out that the much vaunted energy-saving potential of these light bulbs has been greatly exaggerated. The more they are switched on and off, the less electricity they save and the shorter life they have.
Even the British government’s Department for Environment (Defra) admits the total hoped-for saving would be equivalent to the output of a single small coal-fired power station.
But on top of this, not the least practical disadvantage of forcing everyone to use the new bulbs - as millions of aggrieved householders will soon discover - is the wide range of uses for which CFLs are not suitable, such as chandeliers and other decorative features, inside fridges and ovens, where temperatures don't allow them to operate, or inside enclosed fittings, such as patio and garage lights. They also do not work with dimmer switches.
Less than half of all the fittings in UK homes will be able to take CFL bulbs. Every other fitting will need to be changed, or taken out of use. This will take years, since the work can be done only by a qualified electrician – also under EU rules – and it has been estimated this will cost at least £3 billion.
The Mercury Problem
Also, CFL bulbs contain mercury, which the EU had otherwise banned as highly toxic. This creates serious disposal problems. Official guidance on what to do if a CFL bulb breaks is to leave the room immediately and not return for at least 20 minutes. Wear thick gloves to clear up, and dispose of the gloves carefully afterwards. Do not vacuum up the pieces, although it is not clear how you are supposed to remove pieces of glass from a deep pile carpet without using a vacuum.
In fact, the EU’s banning of the use of mercury in many industrial processes has had serious commercial consequences, and forced the closure of some specialist businesses altogether. Repairers of antique barometers have been particularly hard-hit by the EU’s ban on mercury.
All of which makes no sense if mercury is now to be used in every light bulb in every home, office and public building in the country.
If It Ain’t Broke Don’t Fix It
Regardless of all these inconvenient facts, the British government has decided that Britain would ban the use of conventional light bulbs by 2012 – four years earlier than even Brussels thinks is achievable.
Britain risks throwing away a lighting technology which is tried-and-tested, safe, silent, and delivers what is needed – good light at full strength at the flick of a switch. Britons are being told (not asked) to replace it with an alternative which is clumsier, more expensive, doesn't work so well, makes some people ill and could do more environmental harm than good.
One of the side benefits of the present range of bulbs is the heat they generate (as much as 95%), which reduces the need for other forms of heating. So that heat will be lost by switching to CFL bulbs. It will have to be made up by the increased use of central heating, for example, or electric fires. That in turn will place a higher demand for energy on power stations. So the total carbon footprint will remain essentially the same.
Indeed, the carbon footprint of CFL bulbs is higher since they contain complex chemicals and electronics which ordinary bulbs do not. So they generate more carbon in the manufacturing process and disposal at the end of their working life is more environmentally and industrially expensive.
Finally, the headlong rush to force CFL bulbs on the British people ignores the fact that LED lights are thought to be only a matter of a few years away. They will be substantially cheaper, more cost efficient, will threaten no health or safety hazards, and will almost certainly be more acceptable to the public.
15 Will The Euro Collapse? How Can We Help?
The best man to address is the president of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt:
Many other issues arise, too. CFL bulbs are expensive, they work badly in cold weather, they are large and bulky and will not fit into many existing light fittings. They emit a faint but audible buzzing noise, to the great irritation of many, and can interfere with electronic gadgets such as mobile phones and TV remote control units.
Then there is their lifespan, because turning CFLs on and off dramatically shortens the working life of the electronic circuits. To work properly they need to be left on for long periods to get up to full brightness at maximum efficiency. Yet most people have lights on, at most, for a few hours at a time. Often they are on for minutes only. If a CFL is switched on and off frequently, it will probably not last any longer than an incandescent lamp. And unlike normal light bulbs which work until they fail, CFLs gradually produce less light as they age.
Added to which, lighting experts and electrical engineers say the proposed change-over is hopelessly impracticable. They also point out that the much vaunted energy-saving potential of these light bulbs has been greatly exaggerated. The more they are switched on and off, the less electricity they save and the shorter life they have.
Even the British government’s Department for Environment (Defra) admits the total hoped-for saving would be equivalent to the output of a single small coal-fired power station.
But on top of this, not the least practical disadvantage of forcing everyone to use the new bulbs - as millions of aggrieved householders will soon discover - is the wide range of uses for which CFLs are not suitable, such as chandeliers and other decorative features, inside fridges and ovens, where temperatures don't allow them to operate, or inside enclosed fittings, such as patio and garage lights. They also do not work with dimmer switches.
Less than half of all the fittings in UK homes will be able to take CFL bulbs. Every other fitting will need to be changed, or taken out of use. This will take years, since the work can be done only by a qualified electrician – also under EU rules – and it has been estimated this will cost at least £3 billion.
The Mercury Problem
Also, CFL bulbs contain mercury, which the EU had otherwise banned as highly toxic. This creates serious disposal problems. Official guidance on what to do if a CFL bulb breaks is to leave the room immediately and not return for at least 20 minutes. Wear thick gloves to clear up, and dispose of the gloves carefully afterwards. Do not vacuum up the pieces, although it is not clear how you are supposed to remove pieces of glass from a deep pile carpet without using a vacuum.
In fact, the EU’s banning of the use of mercury in many industrial processes has had serious commercial consequences, and forced the closure of some specialist businesses altogether. Repairers of antique barometers have been particularly hard-hit by the EU’s ban on mercury.
All of which makes no sense if mercury is now to be used in every light bulb in every home, office and public building in the country.
If It Ain’t Broke Don’t Fix It
Regardless of all these inconvenient facts, the British government has decided that Britain would ban the use of conventional light bulbs by 2012 – four years earlier than even Brussels thinks is achievable.
Britain risks throwing away a lighting technology which is tried-and-tested, safe, silent, and delivers what is needed – good light at full strength at the flick of a switch. Britons are being told (not asked) to replace it with an alternative which is clumsier, more expensive, doesn't work so well, makes some people ill and could do more environmental harm than good.
One of the side benefits of the present range of bulbs is the heat they generate (as much as 95%), which reduces the need for other forms of heating. So that heat will be lost by switching to CFL bulbs. It will have to be made up by the increased use of central heating, for example, or electric fires. That in turn will place a higher demand for energy on power stations. So the total carbon footprint will remain essentially the same.
Indeed, the carbon footprint of CFL bulbs is higher since they contain complex chemicals and electronics which ordinary bulbs do not. So they generate more carbon in the manufacturing process and disposal at the end of their working life is more environmentally and industrially expensive.
Finally, the headlong rush to force CFL bulbs on the British people ignores the fact that LED lights are thought to be only a matter of a few years away. They will be substantially cheaper, more cost efficient, will threaten no health or safety hazards, and will almost certainly be more acceptable to the public.
15 Will The Euro Collapse? How Can We Help?
The best man to address is the president of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt:
Jean-Claude Trichet
President
European Central Bank
Kaiserstrasse 29
60311 Frankfurt
Germany
Huge financial stresses are now appearing in the eurozone, with bond differentials at unprecedented levels. The PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) are already struggling with unmanageable levels of debt and are unable to act in their own best interests so long as the European Central Bank is in charge.
How does the ECB plan to restore confidence in the euro, before it collapses? Mr Trichet’s interview with Bloomberg’s financial news agency merely increased speculation.
Can Germany reasonably be expected to bail the eurozone out? They seem to be saying they will not. Can you confirm that the Germans retained the facilities and gold to re-launch the Dmark? Did they know, even then, it would eventually fail?
Has an artificial currency enforced on fundamentally different economies ever survived and become a long-term success? Can you name any?
Can any currency survive without a central bank as the lender of last resort? Is the creation of credit or other monetary instruments out of thin air not inflationary? If not, how so?
What the ECB and other central banks are doing is fundamentally unsound. It must eventually lead to serious inflation. Would that not be the only way to devalue the liabilities central banks are building up for yourselves, and which would otherwise become an intolerable burden on future generations?
As president of the ECB, you must be very worried. The eurozone economy is coming to a halt, and damaging structural, economic and commercial problems have emerged.
Neither the ECB, nor anyone else, appears to have any clear answers because none of us have been here before.
Of course we British did not join. This has allowed market forces and local interest rate decisions to devalue sterling. The ECB has not reduced interest rates like the USA and the UK. Is that because the ECB fears a collapse of the euro if rates are reduced? But what do higher interest rates do for the PIIGS?
Meanwhile, thousands of Irish from the south are crossing into the British province of Northern Ireland to take advantage of cheaper goods. Another benefit from the British not being part of the eurozone.
What is the ECB’s reaction to the increasingly widespread civil unrest in numerous EU nation states? Does it not reflect the entirely understandable and escalating need for national interests to be protected in times of financial hardship and unemployment?
Given that the emerging depression will be seen by millions as a fight for survival and a war against economic disaster, is not self-preservation and therefore self-interest inevitable?
Will that not eventually force some governments to leave the eurozone? Surely talk of protectionism is merely code for survival?
And in the interests of UK survival, can you, as president of the ECB, confirm that Clause 103 of the Consolidated Treaties will ensure that the UK will not be called on to bail out your ailing PIIGS, or others who may join them? Clause 100 appears to contradict 103 under circumstances which would be decided by qualified majority vote. Can you confirm this would not be used to draw funds from the UK to rescue the euro?
By the way, when is the ECB planning to regularise the nickel content in euro coins, to comply with the EU directive?
To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com
You have signed up to receive these notifications.
President
European Central Bank
Kaiserstrasse 29
60311 Frankfurt
Germany
Huge financial stresses are now appearing in the eurozone, with bond differentials at unprecedented levels. The PIIGS (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece and Spain) are already struggling with unmanageable levels of debt and are unable to act in their own best interests so long as the European Central Bank is in charge.
How does the ECB plan to restore confidence in the euro, before it collapses? Mr Trichet’s interview with Bloomberg’s financial news agency merely increased speculation.
Can Germany reasonably be expected to bail the eurozone out? They seem to be saying they will not. Can you confirm that the Germans retained the facilities and gold to re-launch the Dmark? Did they know, even then, it would eventually fail?
Has an artificial currency enforced on fundamentally different economies ever survived and become a long-term success? Can you name any?
Can any currency survive without a central bank as the lender of last resort? Is the creation of credit or other monetary instruments out of thin air not inflationary? If not, how so?
What the ECB and other central banks are doing is fundamentally unsound. It must eventually lead to serious inflation. Would that not be the only way to devalue the liabilities central banks are building up for yourselves, and which would otherwise become an intolerable burden on future generations?
As president of the ECB, you must be very worried. The eurozone economy is coming to a halt, and damaging structural, economic and commercial problems have emerged.
Neither the ECB, nor anyone else, appears to have any clear answers because none of us have been here before.
Of course we British did not join. This has allowed market forces and local interest rate decisions to devalue sterling. The ECB has not reduced interest rates like the USA and the UK. Is that because the ECB fears a collapse of the euro if rates are reduced? But what do higher interest rates do for the PIIGS?
Meanwhile, thousands of Irish from the south are crossing into the British province of Northern Ireland to take advantage of cheaper goods. Another benefit from the British not being part of the eurozone.
What is the ECB’s reaction to the increasingly widespread civil unrest in numerous EU nation states? Does it not reflect the entirely understandable and escalating need for national interests to be protected in times of financial hardship and unemployment?
Given that the emerging depression will be seen by millions as a fight for survival and a war against economic disaster, is not self-preservation and therefore self-interest inevitable?
Will that not eventually force some governments to leave the eurozone? Surely talk of protectionism is merely code for survival?
And in the interests of UK survival, can you, as president of the ECB, confirm that Clause 103 of the Consolidated Treaties will ensure that the UK will not be called on to bail out your ailing PIIGS, or others who may join them? Clause 100 appears to contradict 103 under circumstances which would be decided by qualified majority vote. Can you confirm this would not be used to draw funds from the UK to rescue the euro?
By the way, when is the ECB planning to regularise the nickel content in euro coins, to comply with the EU directive?
To respond to, or comment on this Email, please email ashley.mote@btconnect.com
You have signed up to receive these notifications.
Posts
