The EU debate

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

And there are virtually no downsides, except for the odd frothing story in the mail about bendy bananas or such like, that almost always turn out to be a complete load of BS afterwards.

But it wasn't BS though.

It was a real commission regulation that was dropped due to pressure.

The regulation number was 2257/94.

Under this regulation bananas had to be free from abormal curviture and at least 14cm in length.

Cucumbers under the regulation had to be bent by a gradient of no more than 1/10.

I'm all for trade agreements etc. But we don;t need the above nonsense to get that. Neither do we need political union.

danothy

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But it wasn't BS though.

It was a real commission regulation that was dropped due to pressure.

The regulation number was 2257/94.

Under this regulation bananas had to be free from abormal curviture and at least 14cm in length.

Cucumbers under the regulation had to be bent by a gradient of no more than 1/10.

I'm all for trade agreements etc. But we don;t need the above nonsense to get that. Neither do we need political union.

A cursory reading of the wikipedia article on that regulation flags up a number of probable factual inaccuracies in your presentation. Firstly, that regulation doesn't ban the sale of bananas that don't meet the specification, it defines what can be sold as class 1, class 2 etc. Secondly, it wasn't 'dropped due to pressure', as it wasn't dropped, bananas are apparently still covered by this standard, just not in the way you seem to think they were.

CLAPTON

danothy wrote: »

A cursory reading of the wikipedia article on that regulation flags up a number of probable factual inaccuracies in your presentation. Firstly, that regulation doesn't ban the sale of bananas that don't meet the specification, it defines what can be sold as class 1, class 2 etc. Secondly, it wasn't 'dropped due to pressure', as it wasn't dropped, bananas are apparently still covered by this standard, just not in the way you seem to think they were.

the issue is why is it considered necessary to have any regulations about bananas except for health and safety reasons?

Graham_Devon

danothy wrote: »

A cursory reading of the wikipedia article on that regulation flags up a number of probable factual inaccuracies in your presentation. Firstly, that regulation doesn't ban the sale of bananas that don't meet the specification, it defines what can be sold as class 1, class 2 etc. Secondly, it wasn't 'dropped due to pressure', as it wasn't dropped, bananas are apparently still covered by this standard, just not in the way you seem to think they were.

You totally miss the point.

First it was said to be BS. Clearly it wasn't.

Secondly, WHY do we need this sort of regulation in the UK? Why can't we just have trade agreements and get rid of the political nonsnese?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

CLAPTON wrote: »

the issue is why is it considered necessary to have any regulations about bananas except for health and safety reasons?

No idea.

Perhaps you should read about it in more detail....

The regulation applies to unripened green bananas, and thus to growers and wholesalers rather than retailers.[2] The main provisions of the regulation are that bananas sold as unripened, green bananas should be green and unripened, firm and intact, fit for human consumption, not rotten, clean, free of pests and damage from pests, free from deformation or abnormal curvature, free from bruising, free of any foreign smell or taste.[1]

It specifies minimum standards for specific quality classifications of bananas (Extra, Class I, Class II).[1] Only Extra class bananas have to comply fully with the shape specifications. Class II bananas, for instance are permitted to have "defects of shape"; Class I bananas are permitted only "slight defects of shape"

Why is it necessary for the UK to still have a law on the books that makes it illegal to eat mince pies on Christmas day?

Or that makes it illegal to die in the houses of parliament?

And why in the UK is it illegal not to tell HMRC anything you do not want them to know, but legal not to tell them information you do not mind them knowing?

All governments have extremely daft laws or regulations, including the UK, and the EU is no exception.... but getting hung up on ludicrous distractions such as this while ignoring the clear and significant benefits that membership gives us, seems to show rather a prejudiced viewpoint.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

First it was said to be BS. Clearly it wasn't.

It was BS though....

The law didn't ban bendy bananas as the press made out it did, it banned rotten bananas, and stated bananas with excessive defects to shape should be graded as Grade 2 rather than Grade 1, but could still be sold.

danothy

CLAPTON wrote: »

the issue is why is it considered necessary to have any regulations about bananas except for health and safety reasons?

Completely aside from all the quality requirements pertaining to the fitness for human consumption etc., it's hardly unreasonable to set a quantified standard for how "good" you can describe the quality of produce to be when you sell it.

How would you call someone out over selling the lowest quality bananas they could get away with as "top quality" if you didn't actually have a standard that described what top quality was? It's just produce descriptions rules, and I can only imagine grifters wanting to oppose it.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

You totally miss the point.

First it was said to be BS. Clearly it wasn't.

I haven't missed the point at all. Firstly, the assertions being alluded to regarding what is 'BS' is not the existence of a regulation, but the reported interpretation, that you yourself repeated, in which the sale of bananas that don't meet the top specification was banned:

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Under this regulation bananas had to be free from abormal curviture and at least 14cm in length.

That's the sort of BS that is disputed. Bananas classed in the to quality bracket had to meet that standard. Bananas that don't may be classified in a lower bracket but can still be happily sold. Misrepresenting the actual regulation is far more exciting though.

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Secondly, WHY do we need this sort of regulation in the UK? Why can't we just have trade agreements and get rid of the political nonsnese?

Secondly, see above. I like the idea of going to a market and knowing that Class 1 produce is of a certain standard. It worries me that you seem to think that is nonsense. If I had to rely on Reseller-Dave's assurances that his bananas were "top quality governor" with no comeback to an agreed standard if they were questionable I would sleep less easily.

leveller2911

andrewf75 wrote: »

There is a third option of remaining a member and reforming it to what we want it to be - basically a free trade area. People across Europe don't want to give up their nationality for some superstate idea and it can't be forced on people against their will.

I don't think there can be real reform of the EU. Take the CAP for example, its taken decades to reform it and what has been the result?.......Complete fudge.

Reform can only happen if there is an appetite for it amongst the political elite and they will decide whats best for the EU electorate.

Sampong

mayonnaise wrote: »

Big business is interested in one thing only; making money.
And they seem to think they can make more of it by staying in the EU.
Why? Because trading with our biggest import/export partner will become dearer. I thought that was obvious.

That's not always completely the case - many big businesses who otherwise support the concept of the EU want serious reform.

Sampong

andrewf75 wrote: »

I think more important than trade is that our economy is heavily reliant on foreign business setting up here. Look at all the car manufacturers for a start - BMW, Toyota, Nissan, Honda etc. Thats a hell of a lot of jobs which would be at risk if we left the EU. Not saying they will all leave, but they might. Even if we negotiated a free trade deal with the EU after leaving, its a much safer option for a company to set up inside rather than outside. All the Japanese car manufacturers set up in the UK specifically to get inside the EU because at the time there were trade barriers on exporting cars to Europe.

Those companies have all invested heavily here, it would be financial suicide for them to leave (if Britain left the EU). They didn't set manufacturing up here solely because of the EU free trade either - they manufacture where they sell and the UK is something like the 4th biggest market in the world for vehicles.

Logistics and transport of cars is a huge cost - moving production away from a market would be a bad decision unless there were significant cost savings to be made elsewhere.

There is little substance to claims that such jobs would be at risk if we left the EU.