Turn on thread page Beta

Euromyths - Lies in the UK About the European Union watch

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    Given the strong anti-EU sentiment in much of the British population, I thought I'd post this link to a site which debunks many fallacies which are published in the UK about the EU.

    Euromyths.

    http://www.cec.org.uk/press/myths/

    Here's a recent example:

    New rules forbid dog bones
    BBC News Online, 25 May 2004


    Dogs in mid Wales have a bone to pick with officials after they ordered butchers not to give customers bones to take home for their pets. Ceredigion County Council has written to shop owners about a new European Union directive restricting the supply of bones and trimmings, which have for years been regarded as a canine treat.

    Fact:
    The EU Animal By-Products Regulation was adopted in 2002 to help ensure the safe and traceable disposal of animal parts not intended for human consumption, in order to reduce the risk of further agricultural crisis such as BSE and Foot-and-mouth. It does not stop a butcher supplying bones to individual dog owners for their pet’s consumption, provided the bone has not already been thrown away.
    Eurosceptics constantly put forward (false) examples such as this to help back their claims that the EU is bad for Britain. How often do you come across people who make such claim? Would the British population become better disposed towards the EU if they knew the truth?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    i have to say, i found ur post interesting. I believe it would be better in a way for Britain to join the EU fully, but i think since the british people are so proud they dont really want to. I think Britain should be closer with its commonwealth, making more trade agreements, peacekeeping, and making countries who are in the commonwealth more aware about the orginization.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by canuck)
    i have to say, i found ur post interesting. I believe it would be better in a way for Britain to join the EU fully,
    Britain did join fully, 30 years ago.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Given the strong anti-EU sentiment in much of the British population, I thought I'd post this link to a site which debunks many fallacies which are published in the UK about the EU.

    Euromyths.

    http://www.cec.org.uk/press/myths/

    Here's a recent example:



    Eurosceptics constantly put forward (false) examples such as this to help back their claims that the EU is bad for Britain. How often do you come across people who make such claim? Would the British population become better disposed towards the EU if they knew the truth?
    hmm, interesting because

    Article 6.2 of said Regulation http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/...en00010095.pdf states that,

    Category 3 material,

    "animal by-products derived from the production of
    products intended for human consumption, including
    degreased bones and greaves;"

    shall be collected, transported and identified without undue delay in accordance with Article 7 and, except as otherwise provided in Articles 23 and 24, shall be:

    (a) directly disposed of as waste by incineration in an incineration
    plant approved in accordance with Article 12;
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by canuck)
    I think Britain should be closer with its commonwealth, making more trade agreements, peacekeeping, and making countries who are in the commonwealth more aware about the orginization.
    Reminds me of Harold Macmillan (sp).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    hmm, interesting because

    Article 6.2 of said Regulation http://europa.eu.int/eur-lex/pri/en/...en00010095.pdf states that,

    Category 3 material,

    "animal by-products derived from the production of
    products intended for human consumption, including
    degreased bones and greaves;"

    shall be collected, transported and identified without undue delay in accordance with Article 7 and, except as otherwise provided in Articles 23 and 24, shall be:

    (a) directly disposed of as waste by incineration in an incineration
    plant approved in accordance with Article 12;
    Good to see you check up properly, if you read Article 23 it says that so long as the by-product did not come from an animal which died (or may have died) from a disease communicable to humans then it can be used for feeding various animals, including "fur animals." Last I checked dogs were pretty furry.

    Full list of animals which can be given the by-products:

    i) zoo animals,
    ii) circus animals,
    iii) reptiles and birds of prey other than zoo or circus animals,
    iv) fur animals
    v) wild animals the meat of which is not destined for human consumption...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Good to see you check up properly, if you read Article 23 it says that so long as the by-product did not come from an animal which died (or may have died) from a disease communicable to humans then it can be used for feeding various animals, including "fur animals." Last I checked dogs were pretty furry.

    Full list of animals which can be given the by-products:

    i) zoo animals,
    ii) circus animals,
    iii) reptiles and birds of prey other than zoo or circus animals,
    iv) fur animals
    v) wild animals the meat of which is not destined for human consumption...
    hehe, im pleased to see your enthusiasm, but allow me to have the last word seeing as i did make the effort to check this up properly.

    Annex 1 - Specific Definitions
    - 25. ‘fur animals’ means animals kept or reared for the production of fur and not used for human consumption;

    unless you can convince me pet owners across the country bought their puppy to kill and skin its fur, i think my original point holds.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by canuck)
    i have to say, i found ur post interesting. I believe it would be better in a way for Britain to join the EU fully, but i think since the british people are so proud they dont really want to. I think Britain should be closer with its commonwealth, making more trade agreements, peacekeeping, and making countries who are in the commonwealth more aware about the orginization.
    It's just a matter of time before the UK enter the Euro and embraces the EU, the potential gains are too great to ignore and globalisation will takes it toll eventually. When Eurosceptics start to complain about the bend in a banana you know they're running out of ideas.

    As for the Commonwealth; nice idea, but in reality Britain will gain very little from in, a sizeable amount commonwealth nation aren't in a position to export and take on a worthwhile amount of imports. And I think most CW nations are very aware of the advantages it has.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by BazTheMoney)
    It's just a matter of time before the UK enter the Euro and embraces the EU, the potential gains are too great to ignore and globalisation will takes it toll eventually. When Eurosceptics start to complain about the bend in a banana you know they're running out of ideas.

    As for the Commonwealth; nice idea, but in reality Britain will gain very little from in, a sizeable amount commonwealth nation aren't in a position to export and take on a worthwhile amount of imports. And I think most CW nations are very aware of the advantages it has.
    Euroskeptics are concerned about more than the bend of a banana. THey're concerned that other powerful members of the EU are trying to force bad economic policy on us. We enjoy wonderfully low unemployment, by far the highest growth in europe, and more foreign investment than anywhere else. I think Brits also don't want to subsidise inefficient french/dutch farmers either. Surely these are huge things which should concern the British population.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    hehe, im pleased to see your enthusiasm, but allow me to have the last word seeing as i did make the effort to check this up properly.

    Annex 1 - Specific Definitions
    - 25. ‘fur animals’ means animals kept or reared for the production of fur and not used for human consumption;

    unless you can convince me pet owners across the country bought their puppy to kill and skin its fur, i think my original point holds.
    Edited: This is all irrelevant. It says degreased bones.

    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Euroskeptics are concerned about more than the bend of a banana. THey're concerned that other powerful members of the EU are trying to force bad economic policy on us. We enjoy wonderfully low unemployment, by far the highest growth in europe, and more foreign investment than anywhere else. I think Brits also don't want to subsidise inefficient french/dutch farmers either. Surely these are huge things which should concern the British population.
    Eh? We already subsidise farmers, our own included.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Anti Euro sentiment in the media is often fuelled by ignorance and xenophobia.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Edited: This is all irrelevant. It says degreased bones.
    i dont think its irrelevant, degreased effectively means rinsed off in hot water.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    i dont think its irrelevant, degreased effectively means rinsed off in hot water.
    Degreasing proper uses chemicals like acetone to remove all the grease. In any case, if a butcher wants to just give away bones left over from the meat they've just cut off then they are free to do so. Why on earth would a butcher be degreasing bones he's giving away to dog owners?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Degreasing proper uses chemicals like acetone to remove all the grease.
    "ensures that all Category 3 bone-material is...degreased with hot water"

    In any case, if a butcher wants to just give away bones left over from the meat they've just cut off then they are free to do so. Why on earth would a butcher be degreasing bones he's giving away to dog owners?
    i dont know what sort of matter comes away from a bone. if a dog likes to chew on a bone in the home etc, the owner might want it rinsed off. if the EU wont let you touch degreased bones, why would ungreased bones be any different?

    i think this conversation serves to show how ridiculous all of this legislation is, creating another layer of supranational bureaucracy further detaching the people from the state or superstate in this case.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    Eh? We already subsidise farmers, our own included.
    Indeed. I don't want to.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    "ensures that all Category 3 bone-material is...degreased with hot water"
    That's funny!

    CHAPTER VII
    Specific requirements for dicalcium phosphate

    The following conditions apply in addition to the general conditions laid down in Chapter I.

    A. Processing standards

    1. Dicalcium phosphate must be produced by a process that:

    (a) ensures that all Category 3 bone-material is finely crushed and degreased with hot water and treated with dilute hydrochloric acid (at a minimum concentration of 4 % and a pH of less than 1,5) over a period of at least two
    days;
    That really has nothing to do with what we're discussing.

    (Original post by vienna)
    i dont know what sort of matter comes away from a bone. if a dog likes to chew on a bone in the home etc, the owner might want it rinsed off. if the EU wont let you touch degreased bones, why would ungreased bones be any different?

    i think this conversation serves to show how ridiculous all of this legislation is, creating another layer of supranational bureaucracy further detaching the people from the state or superstate in this case.
    If the owner wants it rinsed off, there's nothing stopping them from doing that when they get home.

    EU legislation is produced with the intent of protecting citizens in the EU, I'm sure even you can appreciate how difficult it must be to write these laws. That's why they are under a constant process of review and amendment. If it wasn't for the fact that it's an absurd notion that the police would be arresting butchers for giving dog owners bones (which isn't illegal anyway, as I've already shown) we would probably have seen an amendment about it by now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by fishpaste)
    Indeed. I don't want to.
    Me either, I abhor the CAP.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Llamas)
    That's funny!
    That really has nothing to do with what we're discussing.
    thats why i didnt quote it. it does however show that the EU regards 'degreasing' as being with 'hot water'.


    If the owner wants it rinsed off, there's nothing stopping them from doing that when they get home.
    but then you can see the idiocy in allowing degreased bones, that have been rinsed by a tradesman under EU regulation, to be prohibited, while those bones that are straight from the carcass can wander out of the shop door without a stroke of EU legislation to their name.

    EU legislation is produced with the intent of protecting citizens in the EU, I'm sure even you can appreciate how difficult it must be to write these laws. That's why they are under a constant process of review and amendment. If it wasn't for the fact that it's an absurd notion that the police would be arresting butchers for giving dog owners bones (which isn't illegal anyway, as I've already shown) we would probably have seen an amendment about it by now.
    and it typifies an ideology of Brussels. a top down approach where the state needs to dictate to the people in order to protect them. to such an extent that legislation is mounting up to the point where butchers are told about degreasing bones from non-fur animals in hot water!! i believe this is contrary to how we run things in Britain, or used to before the europhile Labour party came in.

    this article is an example of the difference in mentality......you may agree with the Euro way of things, but i certainly dont. the amount of bureaucratic nonsense and regulation spewing from Brussels is restricting this continent into a socialist supranational bundle of red tape. not breaking down borders or permissive of freedoms or local communities running their lives in a manner they see fit. the libertarian/free market intepretation of a closer europe, one that seemed plausible with the advent of the EEC, has gone out of the window.


    Ad Hellemons, the president of Tispol, the European traffic police network, put it like this: "We can't understand why governments would want to protect drink-drivers."

    That seems to me to be a very European way of seeing things. Mr Hellemons speaks with the authentic voice of a continent well used to being overrun by dictators - from Napoleon to Hitler and Stalin - and well used to looking on the state and its agents as the masters of the people. In Britain, we have been much luckier. We have a tradition of freedom that most continental Europeans simply don't understand. The question for us is not: "Why would governments want to protect drink-drivers?" The question that any free-born Briton should ask is: "Why would governments want to subject sober drivers to roadside breath tests, without any reasonable excuse?"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../ixportal.html
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    thats why i didnt quote it. it does however show that the EU regards 'degreasing' as being with 'hot water'.
    Note quite, otherwise it wouldn't have specified 'with hot water' but would have just said degreasing.


    (Original post by vienna)
    but then you can see the idiocy in allowing degreased bones, that have been rinsed by a tradesman under EU regulation, to be prohibited, while those bones that are straight from the carcass can wander out of the shop door without a stroke of EU legislation to their name.
    That's because the law wasn't aimed at butchers giving bones away, but was trying to regulate the disposal of animal waste to protect the populace from disease.

    (Original post by vienna)
    and it typifies an ideology of Brussels. a top down approach where the state needs to dictate to the people in order to protect them. to such an extent that legislation is mounting up to the point where butchers are told about degreasing bones from non-fur animals in hot water!! i believe this is contrary to how we run things in Britain, or used to before the europhile Labour party came in.

    this article is an example of the difference in mentality......you may agree with the Euro way of things, but i certainly dont. the amount of bureaucratic nonsense and regulation spewing from Brussels is restricting this continent into a socialist supranational bundle of red tape. not breaking down borders or permissive of freedoms or local communities running their lives in a manner they see fit. the libertarian/free market intepretation of a closer europe, one that seemed plausible with the advent of the EEC, has gone out of the window.


    Ad Hellemons, the president of Tispol, the European traffic police network, put it like this: "We can't understand why governments would want to protect drink-drivers."

    That seems to me to be a very European way of seeing things. Mr Hellemons speaks with the authentic voice of a continent well used to being overrun by dictators - from Napoleon to Hitler and Stalin - and well used to looking on the state and its agents as the masters of the people. In Britain, we have been much luckier. We have a tradition of freedom that most continental Europeans simply don't understand. The question for us is not: "Why would governments want to protect drink-drivers?" The question that any free-born Briton should ask is: "Why would governments want to subject sober drivers to roadside breath tests, without any reasonable excuse?"

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../ixportal.html
    Libertarianism is a dangerous and selfish ideology, but that subject is enough to fill thread after thread. The reason the state needs to protect is because certain people, left to their own devices will not consider anyone but themselves.

    In the case of drink driving, this leads to people being killed.

    "Why would governments want to subject sober drivers to roadside breath tests, without any reasonable excuse?"
    Because that way people are less likely to drink and drive, to drink and kill. Because you can sometimes catch drunk drivers even if they don't appear to be driving carelessly at that given time.

    The (far too loud) right wing minority of Britain is diminishing every year. About damn time.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by vienna)
    and it typifies an ideology of Brussels. a top down approach where the state needs to dictate to the people in order to protect them. to such an extent that legislation is mounting up to the point where butchers are told about degreasing bones from non-fur animals in hot water!! i believe this is contrary to how we run things in Britain, or used to before the europhile Labour party came in.
    So how does that differ from the British government, or the US administration? The vast majority of representative democracies are top-down, we elect them, they tell us what to do for 5 years, when we get the chance to kick them out. I fail to see how the EU is any worse.

    And for the butchers thing, I'm sure you could find something similar in UK Health and Safety laws too.
 
 
 
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: August 8, 2004
Poll
Do you think parents should charge rent?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.