Nanny State in the EU?

[papa_smurf]

UK Independence Party going to love this.

[soopaman2]

Originally Posted by Egan

For the record, I'm an atheist and I like Christmas. So does the Muslim guy that runs the shop downstairs from my flat. Funnily enough, the couple of people I know who seem to dislike it the most are Christians. I bet Jesus would rather come 'round to my place on Christmas day to have a glass or two of port and watch the Bond film than go to their place. I'd sing Happy Birthday and everything. Would he need two presents, though? Hmmm.

Me as well, I am adept at mocking but I respect the kindness of Christ.. Heck my real name is Christian... (Italian American thing, all boys have to be named biblically, Peter, Paul, Daniel etc).
But I enjoy Christmas as well. The kids, man...You can never destroy a childs beliefs. America is lawsuit happy. We have a thing about "separation of church and state" that some folks use to kill the general happy time for everyone.

Sorry to derail

this is uter bull.

Well done, I am glad someone noticed.
just another rubbish headline for a rubbish story.
The Telegraph used to be a decent paper, now its just a clone of the Daily Mail.

All this is is an update of the consumer laws from 1988 though they had some very minor changes in 1999, the only real changes are on labels and on the chemicals which can be included in toys for under 14s...unless of course the toy has an engine in which case some cargiogenic substances are still permitted for under 14s toys.

Tell you what though people, if you really believe this legislation bans kids blowing up ballons or using whistles at christmas then give every kid a nice little slingshot to bring to their christmas parties.
Wierd ain't it, slingshots and catapults don't count as toys, neither do a whole pile of other toys...then again just to demonstrate how much this story is just pure bull from a crappy journalist..... balloons don't count as toys so are excluded from the legislation.

Here's one for Sky, he knows more about the legislation in the EU

You have got to be kidding
If that were the case he wouldn't be caught out repeatedly inventing "EU legislation"
In this case he will probably take the maximum permitted levels of arsenic that a toy may contain, treble it and insist it is really the bare minimum that each toy must contain from the secret EU dictat.

UK Independence Party going to love this.

Yeah, like they loved the story about the cat which they sold to your Home Secretary....that turned out to be very embarrasing bull didn't it.

[kraznyi_oktjabr]

@Tribesman

If this articles' content is effectively Daily Fail Mk 2 then could you provide link to alternative article or explain what this EU thing actually changes?

Kraznyi do you want a link to 88/378 and 09/48?

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I assume that the commission or the responsible commissioner would warn and warn, and finally would launch a EU legal prosecution against your country, which could lead to either the case being brought to a EU court and your government getting sentenced to comply, or the proclamation of financial fines by the commissioner's ressort office.

I do not know it for sure.

Will all due respect Sky, you are more or less right. Slovenia would, under EU law, be required to either put into effect (regulation) or transpose into national law (directive) a certain piece of legislation as adopted by the EU Parliament and the Council of the EU (people keep forgetting countries accept must approve legislation). If Slovenia did not comply, it would get a warning, which, if not respected, would put Slovenia in danger of appearing before the ECJ. In a certain period of time, Slovenia would still have the opportunity to actually do something and the Commission would request that the proceedings stop. If Slovenia decided during all this time to screw Brussels (even though it voted for the law at the EU level), the ECJ would decide if the country either broke the rules by not putting into effect, transposing, or transposing completely the piece of legislation. It is also possible for it not the be applied properly and this is why a court inside a member state can demand that the ECJ gives its legal opinion on the matter of the interpretation or application of EU law.

The author of the article in question is well know for his more that non-favourable regard of the EU in general. The problem is...I find myself agreeing more and with his opinion. The sensationalism is one of Bruno's problems. Some more moderation would serve him better. Yet the most important thing here is that the quoted rules are included in the guidelines. The guidelines which were published by the Commission to ensure "universal" compliance. These rules are not included in the law itself. But I'm not enough of a legal expert to answer whether or not guidelines are to be fully respected.

Yet the most important thing here is that the quoted rules are included in the guidelines

Which quoted rules?

[Betonov]

Then what, they'd put an entire nation of 2 million behind bars ?? Go to war ??

@Tribesman:

Here's one for Sky, he knows more about the legislation in the EU than me

Happy ??

Then what, they'd put an entire nation of 2 million behind bars ?? Go to war ??

There are 2 million people in the toy industry in Slovenia?
Are you making up for lost time like there was in Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. Call out Benny Hill

[Betonov]

No Chichi bang bang here, we only produce scale model Yugoslav partisan action figures

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Which quoted rules?

The rules in the article that say that balloons will need to be properly marked and the like. The guidelines, together with the directive (which has to be translated into national law and cannot be taken for literal law), can be found here.

@Betonov

Calm down, my good man. Countries are forced to pay fines, as we were forced to pay when we didn't transpose an environment directive in its fullest. No-one goes behind bars.

Let's just all take a deep breath and look at this from a perspective. Problematic? Yes. The most horrible piece of legislation and control over personal life ever? No. Don't mistake the Commission technocratic recommendation, for legal obligation.

[Betonov]

Nah, I'm just curious how far a country can go with not following one law from Brussels.
You break the law, get a fine, don't pay it and you go to jail and the fine is paid of by selling your assets. Cops enforce that ''transaction''
But there are no cops for countries. Who enforces EU laws if a member refuses to comply, who enforces paying the fine

[Respenus]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Nah, I'm just curious how far a country can go with not following one law from Brussels.
You break the law, get a fine, don't pay it and you go to jail and the fine is paid of by selling your assets. Cops enforce that ''transaction''
But there are no cops for countries. Who enforces EU laws if a member refuses to comply, who enforces paying the fine

You pay...trust me...It has yet to happen that a country or company didn't pay their fines or that a country didn't fix its internal law to follow the acquis. But now that you ask, I actually don't know the legal framework. I remember something about voting rights, but that's the extreme. Plus, the US would had lost its voting rights in the UN SC due to non-payment a long time ago. Same applies to the EU. Collective pressure or just too big.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Betonov

Nah, I'm just curious how far a country can go with not following one law from Brussels.
You break the law, get a fine, don't pay it and you go to jail and the fine is paid of by selling your assets. Cops enforce that ''transaction''
But there are no cops for countries. Who enforces EU laws if a member refuses to comply, who enforces paying the fine

You would normally go into a state of 'non compliance' and the threat of trade sanctions etc.

Much better to simply leave the EU IMHO....I wishthe UK would.