You're European now

[Thailand]

27. Unparalleled rights for European consumers

Any consumer can send back a product if it breaks down within two years of purchase. Manufacturers often claim that they offer only a 12 month guarantee, but EU law states otherwise and consumers are demanding their rights.

 

Daily Express | UK News :: EU to ban all shop refunds

 

Sounds contrary!

[Bookworm]

That's because this is one occasion where the Brits have -on principle- better consumer protection. The Sales of Goods Act offers us protection which is longer and tighter than the 2 years European equivalent.

 

So for someone who knows their statutory rights, SOGA is better.

 

The problem arises where people do NOT know their statutory rights and get told: "it's over one year old, there's nothing we can do" and believe it. The retailers fudge the line between statutory rights and guarantees and thus avoid having to deal with issues the way they should. For that kind of dishonest retailer, then the 2 yrs European rule is better. It is a sad fact that most people do not know their rights and tend to swallow whatever is being fed to them and in that respect they may be better served by the European directive.

 

Personally, I don't see why the 2 can't cohabit peacefully to the consumer's advantage: a 2 yrs guarantee for goods and SOGA to apply as it does now, giving us up to the 6 yrs limit as set in the Limitations Act 1980 for certain goods.

 

As always, the words that matter are "reasonable expectation": Is your £5 toaster from Argos reasonably expected to last as long as the £100 toaster from John Lewis? Should my £1 handbag from Primark last as long as my £60 one from Clarks? And if I were to pay £50 000 for a car, am I not entitled to work without problems for a lot longer than 2 years?

 

The main thing is NEVER EVER confuse statutory rights and guarantees. They give you different rights and different remedies.

[Spamalot]

^^Thanks for that Bookie I'll remember that. ^^

 

At the risk of being egged... I'm finding very little greatness about Great Britain these days, and in some ways I'm almost ashamed to be british... the NHS is pants... the education system is pants... the harder you work the less you get and the lazier you are the more you get.. discipline/law and order is a joke and the country's broke... so what's so Great about Britain...

[hilaryfrances]

calm down dear

[Spamalot]

calm down dear

 

Thank you Mr Winner...

 

Oh and Royal mail is a joke too.... No pressie from hils today just next,door but ones Barclaycard Bill and they still haven't managed to deliver my 1st class reg letter from Monday..

[Thailand]

Oh, spammie...I can't agree with you about the NHS. Whilst the monster that it is (And I've had horrendous experiences with it) suffers with the usual sordid topic of coin, it is, nonetheless, something we are lucky to have..... I forgive it everything and the cow that has triaged-me-bad twice!

 

As for the lazy twunts...well, I agree. Only in this country does doing feck all pay off!!

[SOD'EM]

 

At the risk of being egged:(

 

 

Have you seen the price off eggs in this country nowadays!!

[Spamalot]

Hmmmm NHS.... maybe it depends where you live in the UK as to whether it's any good or not perhaps I'll reserve judgement on that one... I guess it's because I've been waiting just over 4 years now for an assessment for my daughter from an occupational therapist... but as there's only 1 & 1/2 therapists covering our area... (1/2 a therapist what good is that:eek:) and she's not 'urgent' we've been ignored.... and yet there's money to cover NHS for peeps that don't even pay tax in our country... ... personal rant I know, but it's not always a fair system IMHO and therfore earns my accolade of 'Pants'....

[Spamalot]

Have you seen the price off eggs in this country nowadays!!

 

I know!!! I always wait 'til halloween and nick 'em out the unsuspecting yobs pockets..

[MilkTrayMan]

...there's money to cover NHS for peeps that don't even pay tax in our country.

Many other countries have reciporical agreements with the UK, to provide certain levels of health care for their respective citizens Spammie...

Healthcare abroad

 

 

[renegotiation]

The reason we didn't take the euro was so that 'rip off Britain' could exist for a few more years. We were always going to join. This political E.U. is corrupt and terrible for democracy. They have also sneaked in the death penalty through the back door. Convenient for them in case they ever need to liquidate serious opponents. That's the truth.

[Tezcatlipoca]

I think it's largely accepted that Britain properly joining Europe is no longer a question of Will we? as When will we?.

 

Increasingly it seems that shouts of nationalist retention, which often cross over into jingoism or - in the case of certain elements of the gutter press - outright bigotry, are not only cries in the wind, but cries without substance.

Change and evolution is natural, as is opposition to it, but those against the idea of a single, homogenous European state are - and will continue to be - isolated.

 

Speaking personally, I have very little issue with it whatsoever, but then I find the entire concept of nationalism and identity simply by belonging to a geographical adminstrative area a little outdated.

I suspect the future of our species (assuming we don't eradicate ourselves first by doing something stupid like building a LHC and generating a black hole) will be a division of ideology, rather than geography.

 

There will continue to be corruption, because humans are corrupt. There will continue to be mistakes, because humans are imperfect. But ultimately, I think the benefits of a greater level of unification will probably outweigh the flaws.

 

Of course the change to fully embracing Europe will mean alterations in the way we do things currently, but, to finish on a pun, nobody said it would be EC...

[sequenci]

nobody said it would be EC...

 

*groan*

[renegotiation]

I think it's largely accepted that Britain properly joining Europe is no longer a question of Will we? as When will we?.

 

We already have. To say otherwise is splitting hairs. However, if we vote for UKIP we can leave.

 

 

 

Increasingly it seems that shouts of nationalist retention, which often cross over into jingoism or - in the case of certain elements of the gutter press - outright bigotry, are not only cries in the wind, but cries without substance. Change and evolution is natural, as is opposition to it, but those against the idea of a single, homogenous European state are - and will continue to be - isolated.

 

Sure, that's why they were too scared to hold a referendum? Those unsubstantial and isolated voices... :confused: :rolleyes:

 

 

 

Speaking personally, I have very little issue with it whatsoever, but then I find the entire concept of nationalism and identity simply by belonging to a geographical adminstrative area a little outdated. I suspect the future of our species (assuming we don't eradicate ourselves first by doing something stupid like building a LHC and generating a black hole) will be a division of ideology, rather than geography.

 

The golden nugget is who gets to decide that. Huge decisions like European political union need to be taken by the people! You would deny the people a voice?

 

 

 

There will continue to be corruption, because humans are corrupt. There will continue to be mistakes, because humans are imperfect. But ultimately, I think the benefits of a greater level of unification will probably outweigh the flaws.

 

The greater the body the more scope for corruption. Just look at the U.S.A. and the disconnect between their public and government. We aren't too far behind!

 

 

 

They have also sneaked in the death penalty through the back door. Convenient for them in case they ever need to liquidate serious opponents. That's the truth.

 

And they even reintroduced the death penalty without telling anyone. WTF!

[Tezcatlipoca]

Could you kindly clarify some points in your post, renegotiation?

 

Specifically, you state that we have already joined Europe. You will note the adjective properly in my post. It's there for a reason.

Could you please clarify what you mean by your assertion that Britain has already joined Europe?

 

Secondly, you state "You would deny the people a voice?" in reference to my post. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I don't believe I intimated at any point that people should be, or are, denied a voice.

Clearly the question of sharing legislative power is a tricky one, made near-impossible when nationalistic tendencies are retained, but I don't think my personal belief that nationism is fast becoming outdated, and that future social divides are more likely to be defined by differing ideologies rather than geography, is in anyway a statement that people should be, could be, or are, currently denied a voice.

 

Thirdly, I note you feel the need to reassert your earlier statement on the death penalty by quoting and responding to your own post, which is rather curious behaviour.

I personally am unfamiliar with a recent reintroduction of capital punishment in any European state. There are a small number of retentionist states, but no state - to my knowledge - that has reintroduced it.

The right way to make this kind of assertive statement is to provide clear information with links to relevent news stories. The wrong way is to keep repeating yourself, which doesn't lend any more credence to what you're saying. Which doesn't lend any more credence to what you're saying. Which doesn't lend any more creden- ok, that's quite enough of that

[renegotiation]

Could you kindly clarify some points in your post, renegotiation?

 

I will do my best.

 

 

 

Specifically, you state that we have already joined Europe. You will note the adjective properly in my post. It's there for a reason. Could you please clarify what you mean by your assertion that Britain has already joined Europe?

 

And note the term 'splitting hairs' in my post. I was fully aware you used the term 'properly'. While we may not actually be one country yet I would say that having an E.U. Council, a President, a foreign minister and a diplomatic corps, combined with the E.U.'s extended capacity to formulate and impose new laws, leaves us with very little sovereignty. The 'passerelle clause', also known as the self-amending mechanism, gives the E.U. power to extend its own jurisdiction and our parliament doesn't have a say in this! The Secession Procedure even gives the E.U. power to decide the terms on which we leave. Fat chance of that anyway given the people don't have a say in it. Do you actually think we retain any meaningful power? If so, then what?

 

 

 

 

Secondly, you state "You would deny the people a voice?" in reference to my post. Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, but I don't believe I intimated at any point that people should be, or are, denied a voice. Clearly the question of sharing legislative power is a tricky one, made near-impossible when nationalistic tendencies are retained, but I don't think my personal belief that nationism is fast becoming outdated, and that future social divides are more likely to be defined by differing ideologies rather than geography, is in anyway a statement that people should be, could be, or are, currently denied a voice.

 

I asked you a question. So you would fully admit that the people have been denied a voice, which was even promised to them, and that this was incredibly wrong then? I think that's what you are saying.

 

 

 

Thirdly, I note you feel the need to reassert your earlier statement on the death penalty by quoting and responding to your own post, which is rather curious behaviour.

I personally am unfamiliar with a recent reintroduction of capital punishment in any European state. There are a small number of retentionist states, but no state - to my knowledge - that has reintroduced it. The right way to make this kind of assertive statement is to provide clear information with links to relevent news stories. The wrong way is to keep repeating yourself, which doesn't lend any more credence to what you're saying. Which doesn't lend any more credence to what you're saying. Which doesn't lend any more creden- ok, that's quite enough of that

 

I was giving emphasis to my post, as I think its incredibly important that the people of the E.U. should have been told that the death penalty has been reintroduced! I was hoping someone would pick up on it. I am very glad that you have. You are unfamiliar with this development, which applies to ALL E.U. member states, because they didn't want anyone to know about it. There is no right way or wrong way to make a statement. People read it and can follow it up themselves or can show interest and query it. You have queried it and I am happy to elaborate for you by adding credence. Firstly, I would look at this:

 

The Truth Seeker - Lisbon Treaty Allows for Death Penalty Across E.U.

 

This is real. Note that they even used the term 'upheaval' as one of the scenarios when executions could be carried out. They stuck it in as a footnote in the Lisbon Treaty that referred to another Charter, which we automatically signed up to through the Lisbon Treaty, that had another footnote in it with the incriminating text. That's scary! Why did they do that? Please, can anyone that reads this take it to their M.P. and ask them why they haven't been told about this! I am pretty confident that most M.P.'s didn't even know this, at least at the time. Secondly, read the Lisbon Treaty footnote yourself, then read the European Union Charter footnote yourself. If that doesn't give credence for you I don't know what will. Don't take my word on it!

Edited December 2, 2009 by renegotiation

[HSBCrusher]

If England joins the USE, that only counts up to the Tamar!

[Bookworm]

Errmmm, the reference to the death penalty as described is actually in the protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty, 28/04/1983.

 

Since the Lisbon Treaty has only just been ratified, it is nonsensical to say that article 2 has been "snuck in", nor is it hardly a "footnote". The above protocol is relating to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, relating to the ABOLITION of the death penalty as signed by all member states of the Council of Europe.

 

The anti-European brigade is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one.

[renegotiation]

Errmmm, the reference to the death penalty as described is actually in the protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty, 28/04/1983.

 

Since the Lisbon Treaty has only just been ratified, it is nonsensical to say that article 2 has been "snuck in", nor is it hardly a "footnote". The above protocol is relating to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, relating to the ABOLITION of the death penalty as signed by all member states of the Council of Europe.

 

The anti-European brigade is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one.

 

The 'Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union' was signed on 7th December 2000 in Nice and did not become a legal document until 1st December 2009 when the Lisbon Treaty was ratified.

 

Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

The U.K., Poland and the Czech Republic opted out of this part of the Lisbon Treaty 'for now'. This is Article 6 of the Lisbon Treaty:

 

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:C:2007:306:0135:0135:EN:PDF

 

It says nothing about the 'Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union' in the Articles, which I think is very important stuff. Only by looking at the Protocols to be annexed to the Treaty do you see that we are all, bar 3 countries, being signed up to the 'Charter Of Fundamental Rights Of The European Union'. I don't think that's far off a footnote. Here is the said Charter:

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/text_en.pdf

 

Article 2 prohibits the death penalty. Then we have the 'Explanations By The Convention Relating To The Charter Of Fundamental Rights. Convent 49' here:

 

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/charter/pdf/04473_en.pdf

 

Look at Article 2 and then read the 'Explanations' underneath, especially explanations 3(a) and 3(b). They are definitely footnotes in my view. Quite huge ones in my humble opinion. This is real. Some lawmakers are scraping the barrel and not me!

 

 

 

3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the

ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance

with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the "negative" definitions appearing in the

ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:

"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article

when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully

detained;

© in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:

"A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts

committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied

only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

Edited December 2, 2009 by renegotiation

[Tezcatlipoca]

Do you actually think we retain any meaningful power? If so, then what?

 

A considerable amount, actually, the most obvious being our staunch maintaining of the pound. In a world where influence is to a great extent dictated by affluence, the keeping of an independent currency, especially a comparatively strong currency, clearly sets that country aside.

 

So you would fully admit that the people have been denied a voice, which was even promised to them, and that this was incredibly wrong then? I think that's what you are saying.

 

Hmmm...you appear to be desperate to argue a point, but are making the mistake of seeing the contrary point to your argument where it doesn't exist. It is clear you are strongly anti-Europe, but I'm still a little confused as to exactly what it is you're arguing against.

 

If it's a nebulous idea that evil Europe is taking over the country and dictating law without the consent of the majority of the population then I hate to point out the naïveté of that stance but that's all government, be it local, central or international.

 

I was giving emphasis to my post, as I think its incredibly important that the people of the E.U. should have been told that the death penalty has been reintroduced!

 

But you weren't, and it hasn't. What you were doing was wanting to repeat your earlier post since you felt, by your own admission, it had not been noticed. The problem here is that I think - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that you've read one online article and are now arguing your corner vehemently, possibly just for the sake of arguing. Again, I refer back to my earlier reference to increasingly isolated dissenting voices.

 

Errmmm, the reference to the death penalty as described is actually in the protocol No. 6 to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms concerning the abolition of the death penalty, 28/04/1983.

 

Since the Lisbon Treaty has only just been ratified, it is nonsensical to say that article 2 has been "snuck in", nor is it hardly a "footnote". The above protocol is relating to the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms of 1950, relating to the ABOLITION of the death penalty as signed by all member states of the Council of Europe.

 

The anti-European brigade is really scraping the bottom of the barrel with that one.

 

Indeed so. I repeat my earlier statement that I know of no European state that has reintroduced the death penalty, and I believe one of the many conditions on Turkey for joining the European Union is the abolition of capital punishment, together with other sweeping reforms on its rather shoddy record on human rights.

I note also that the original source material given by renegotiation for this revelation is www.truthseeker.co.uk, which is noted to be something of a conspiracy theorists blog and run by Rixon Stewart, himself no stranger to baseless conjecture.

 

***EDIT***

I note after posting that renegotiation has posted a number of other links whilst I was typing this. I'll post again when I've have time to go through the linked PDFs ze provides.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Tezcatlipoca

[Bookworm]

I note also that the source material given by renegotiation for this 'revelation' is www.truthseeker.co.uk, which is noted to be something of a conspiracy theorists blog.

No sh*t.

[renegotiation]

No sh*t.

 

The Treaties I have just referred you to don't exist then?

[Tezcatlipoca]

Look at Article 2 and then read the 'Explanations' underneath, especially explanations 3(a) and 3(b). They are definitely footnotes in my view. Quite huge ones in my humble opinion. This is real. Some lawmakers are scraping the barrel and not me!

 

 

 

3. The provisions of Article 2 of the Charter correspond to those of the above Articles of the

ECHR and its Protocol. They have the same meaning and the same scope, in accordance

with Article 52(3) of the Charter. Therefore, the "negative" definitions appearing in the

ECHR must be regarded as also forming part of the Charter:

(a) Article 2(2) of the ECHR:

"Deprivation of life shall not be regarded as inflicted in contravention of this article

when it results from the use of force which is no more than absolutely necessary:

(a) in defence of any person from unlawful violence;

(b) in order to effect a lawful arrest or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully

detained;

© in action lawfully taken for the purpose of quelling a riot or insurrection."

(b) Article 2 of Protocol No 6 to the ECHR:

"A State may make provision in its law for the death penalty in respect of acts

committed in time of war or of imminent threat of war; such penalty shall be applied

only in the instances laid down in the law and in accordance with its provisions…"

 

Ok, I'm more than happy to confess that I'm not a trained lawyer, and I have only had time to read the specific sections you refer to, but the articles don't read as a reintroduction of the death penalty as you've inferred.

 

The death penalty means, specifically, the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense.

The articles you post are catering for exceptional circumstance, which exists in the law of all countries, and is a long way from constituting a "sneaked in" death penalty.

[renegotiation]

A considerable amount, actually, the most obvious being our staunch maintaining of the pound. In a world where influence is to a great extent dictated by affluence, the keeping of an independent currency, especially a comparatively strong currency, clearly sets that country aside.

 

You say we still retain a 'considerable amount' of meaningful power and then just mention that we still use sterling as currency? I don't think that will last long, but we'll see. Is that it?

 

 

Hmmm...you appear to be desperate to argue a point, but are making the mistake of seeing the contrary point to your argument where it doesn't exist. It is clear you are strongly anti-Europe, but I'm still a little confused as to exactly what it is you're arguing against.

 

If it's a nebulous idea that evil Europe is taking over the country and dictating law without the consent of the majority of the population then I hate to point out the naïveté of that stance but that's all government, be it local, central or international.

 

All I asked you was a simple question. The question was 'would you fully admit that the people have been denied a voice, which was even promised to them, and that this was incredibly wrong?' You come up with all that, then call me argumentative, yet still don't answer?

 

 

 

But you weren't, and it hasn't. What you were doing was wanting to repeat your earlier post since you felt, by your own admission, it had not been noticed. The problem here is that I think - and please correct me if I'm wrong - that you've read one online article and are now arguing your corner vehemently, possibly just for the sake of arguing. Again, I refer back to my earlier reference to increasingly isolated dissenting voices.

 

Well I was and it has as you are proving. And then you say yourself say I was after saying I wasn't:

 

'What you were doing was wanting to repeat your earlier post since you felt, by your own admission, it had not been noticed.'

 

I've read several articles online and offline and followed them up myself as I have just proven by methodically listing all my sources. Do you dispute any of these sources? If so, then which one? Please clarify. Also, I refer you back to my point about the oddity of our government being worried about giving a referendum to 'isolated dissenting voices'. What about the results of the European elections earlier this year? UKIP did well.

 

 

 

Indeed so. I repeat my earlier statement that I know of no European state that has reintroduced the death penalty, and I don't expect to.

I one of the many conditions on Turkey for joining the European Union is the abolition of the capital punishment, together with other sweeping reforms on its rather shoddy record on human rights.

 

22 states reintroduced the death penalty yesterday and I don't think it will be too long before the other 3 follow. I have given you direct links to the laws and even cut and pasted the most relevant bit for you. Do you dispute the source? Please clarify.

 

 

 

I note also that the original source material given by renegotiation for this 'revelation' is www.truthseeker.co.uk, which is noted to be something of a conspiracy theorists blog and run by Rixon Stewart, himself no stranger to baseless conjecture.

 

I just gave you a link to a simple and straightforward expalantion of the issue, which I thought was what you wanted. I have since given you hard sources.

 

 

 

That said, renegotiation has posted a number of other links whilst I've been typing this, so I suspect an hour or two's reading is called for before a fulelr response is given.

 

I'm up for decent debate. Come back tomorrow if you like. Don't rush a response like you did this one. This isn't a daft 'tit for tat' spat or a competition. I'm genuinely concerned about this issue!

Edited December 2, 2009 by renegotiation

[renegotiation]

Ok, I'm more than happy to confess that I'm not a trained lawyer, and I have only had time to read the specific sections you refer to, but the articles don't read as a reintroduction of the death penalty as you've inferred.

 

The death penalty means, specifically, the execution of a person by judicial process as a punishment for an offense.

The articles you post are catering for exceptional circumstance, which exists in the law of all countries, and is a long way from constituting a "sneaked in" death penalty.

 

I'm not a trained lawyer either. If it isn't a reintroduction of the death penalty then what is it? You are concerned with 'specifics'? Section 3(B) even calls it the 'death penalty'. This provision certainly didn't already exist in the law of all countries. All of the circumstances can easily be twisted. It gives the E.U., a licence to kill. If it wasn't sneaked in, then why wasn't in the main text of the Lisbon Treaty? It was in a Protocol that listed items to be annexed to the Lisbon Treaty. You then follow the dots to this Treaty that was annexed to the Lisbon Treaty and happily read about a 'right to life' and 'no death penalty'. You then have to read another document that explains the Articles in the Treaty that was annexed to the Lisbon Treaty and only then find contradictory stuff like that? To me that's mind boggling and definitely 'snuck in'. And you are trying to make me out to be a 'wally', which I think is a little unfair, so I have to stamp my feet a little bit. I reiterate, I think this is important.

Edited December 2, 2009 by renegotiation