THE EUROPEAN UNION

Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5
 

EU bureaucrats want to end the right of shoppers to get their money back for shoddy goods. For more than a century, shops have offered refunds to people who return unwanted or faulty goods. Plans by the European Union to “harmonise” consumer law will short-change them by removing that right and weakening safeguards. Ministers have vowed to fight the Consumer Rights Directive but the UK Government has no power to stop the change if it is backed by the majority of European Union states.

Worse still, if the law is passed retailers will be banned from “gold-plating” the legislation by continuing to offer money-back guarantees. Lola Bello, senior policy advocate for Consumer Focus, said, “Our right to return shoddy goods helps keep industry on its toes. It drives up product standards and is a cheap way of resolving disputes quickly. It is a vital element in our consumer protection regime and not one we’d be prepared to lose or see watered down.”

The legislation, which would also cover goods bought over the phone or the internet, is designed to ensure the same level of consumer protection if shoppers buy goods in any EU member state. However, a report by the House of Lords EU Committee is critical of the move, saying British shoppers will be at a disadvantage if they are buying goods elsewhere in Europe. Lord Borrie, honorary vice-president of the Trading Standards Institute, said the directive was an “unrealistic ambition”.

Instead of money-back guarantees, the directive would allow traders to offer only the repair or replacement of faulty goods. The liability for replacement or repair would also be cut from six years to two, even though such products as cars, boilers and double glazing should reasonably be expected to last longer. The EU Committee said this raised fears of a spawning new culture of “disposable” goods as the incentive to manufacture hard-wearing products would be removed.

It is the loss of the right to refund which has prompted the biggest backlash against the directive however. Mats Persson, research director of the think-tank Open Europe, said, “The directive will sweep away the age-old right of Britons to get their money back for returned goods." The Government has vowed to fight Brussels to retain this right but they have no power to stop it from becoming law if it wins the backing of the majority of other member states. (Source: Sunday Express, Nov/09)

If the UK were to leave the EU, there would be no net loss of jobs or trade. In addition, we would be between £17 billion and £40 billion per year better off, possibly more. These are the findings of A Cost Too Far?, published by Civitas. Ex Prime Minister Blair often claimed that 60% of the UK’s trade and three million jobs ‘depend on’ our EU membership. Closer analysis reveals this to be a highly misleading claim.

Three Million Jobs Would Go? Another of Blair’s mistakes was to believe that the jobs currently resulting from trade with the EU would be lost if we left. However, a number of authoritative studies have found that leaving the EU would have little impact on jobs, including a report by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research, and a report for the US Congress by the US International Trade Commission. In particular, if the UK left the EU, it is unlikely that UK companies would be denied access to other EU markets. (Source: Civitas, Sep/07)

East Midlands MEP Roger Helmer has vowed to fight a plan to be put before the European Parliament which would require British drivers to apply for an EU licence. The Grosch Report calls for national driving licences to be replaced by an EU-wide scheme, removing control of driver registration from national governments. As might be expected with an EU scheme, the new Euro-licences would also impose added interferences on the British motorist. Most significantly, all drivers over the age of 45 would be required to have a medical examination as could disabled people before being considered for a licence The driving age would also be decided by Europe rather than by the UK government. There would be hugely increased numbers of classification of vehicle types for which separate tests would be required. The proposal, which was debated at first reading in the Transport Committee, would have a major impact on all of Britain's motorists.

Speaking from the European Parliament, East Midlands Conservative Euro-MP Roger Helmer, commented, "This is a perfect example of the EU needlessly trying to interfere in an area which is already working perfectly well and in which there is no need to take away power from member states. The UK has already made sacrifices in this area by adopting a standard EU-pattern driving licence with a photo ID, now we're being told we should go further and just let Brussels take over the whole thing. The idea that everyone over 45 or who is disabled should take a medical before they can be given a licence is intrusive and absurd and will lead to vast expense and inconvenience for motorists. Our current system is efficient, and there is no reason to change what is a widely respected system internationally. I intend to fight this all the way."

More than 80 garden sprays and weedkillers were banned from sale because of stricter regulations on potentially harmful chemicals. The new European rules primarily ban lawn treatments which kill dandelions, nettles and brambles. They include some own-brand products from Asda, Homebase and B&Q. Stores face fines of up to £5,000 if they sell the offending goods, but gardeners can continue to use them until the end of the year 2003. They will not be allowed to store any of them after the end of March. Environmentalists warned that local authorities would struggle to collect and dispose of the unwanted pesticides. Friends of the Earth said many local authorities, which are responsible for the clear up, were ill equipped to dispose of toxic pesticide waste. It is illegal to get rid of the garden chemicals down drains, sinks or toilets.

"If pesticides are simply thrown in bins they will end up in landfill sites and will end up contaminating our environment," FoE said. The group said some products were not covered by the ban despite being proven to damage human health, and it criticised the Government for not putting money into projects to find safer alternatives. "Many risky pesticides have been given the green light, and safer alternatives have not been found for those products being banned," the group said. The Crop Protection Association (CPA), which represents the pesticide industry, said it had sent letters to 200 local authorities to brief them on the new regulations. "We have given them sufficient warnings," said the chief executive, Peter Sanguinetti. "Some authorities are already very advanced with their plans and some are not."

The organic movement said the ban on some pesticides marked a great opportunity to promote chemical-free gardening. Maggi Brown, head of education at Europe's largest organic gardening association, HDRA, said: "There has been reliance on chemicals as a quick fix ... Those people who say you can't possibly grow vegetables, or fruit or flowers, without pesticide should look at the hundreds of thousands of organic gardeners up and down the country and the rest of the world." The move, led by the European Union, is part of a process to regulate the pesticide industry, which in Britain is worth £416m a year. The makers of the pesticides that were banned from sale yesterday were unwilling to put them through new stringent safety tests.

The industry said the products were mainly older versions of pesticides that had been superseded or were for niche markets and were not worth the estimated £1m cost of putting them through the tests. The Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs said the ban came into force because the safety of the products could no longer be guaranteed. Most contained dichlorprop, which the industry said had been rendered obsolete by a more environmentally friendly version of the chemical. David Bowe, a Labour MEP and a spokesman on the environment, said about 10% of garden pesticide products sold in the UK have had to be withdrawn from the shelves.

Brussels has fined Britain more than £150million for failing to display the EU flag on a string of projects part-funded by Europe. Several schemes were also penalised for failing to use the flag on their letterheads. The fines relate to £3.8billion given to the UK by the European Regional Development Fund over a seven-year period. The fund has contributed to dozens of projects including the Eden Project, in Cornwall, the Millennium Bridge, in Gateshead, and the redevelopment of Liverpool’s King’s Dock. Funding from the ERDF usually has to be matched pound for pound by Government cash. Britain is a net contributor to the EU budget and critics have long complained that ERDF funding is essentially recycled taxpayers’ money. This year the UK will contribute £6.4billion more to Brussels than it receives back. (Source: Daily Mail, Jul/10)

Euro MPs squander millions of pounds of British taxpayers’ money every year on cosmetic perks including anti-ageing therapy and facial hair removal. In yet another scandalous example of the European gravy train, MEPs can also have IVF treatments. They can stay at thermal health spas, have breast reductions and buy slimming products and Viagra pills. All are funded by the public as part of their controversial medical cover. This year’s £3million budget for Euro MPs’ medical expenses also covers alternative therapies like lymphatic drainage, a delicate massage that helps the body eliminate toxins.

The taxpayer funds at least two-thirds of the cost of all treatments, and many are 100% covered. Details of the appalling waste on personal vanity indicates the juggernaut of EU excess shows no signs of slowing and comes as Britons brace themselves for a year of soaring food and fuel bills, wage freezes and cuts in council services. And it is certain to add to the momentum behind the Daily Express’s crusade for the UK to withdraw from the EU. An MEP and staff cost an average of £370,000, made up of salaries, gold-plated pensions and expenses.

Details of the expenses are revealed in a leaked copy of the Practical Guide to the Reimbursement of Medical Expenses. It shows MEPs are reimbursed not only for conventional treatments for conditions like cancer, diabetes and emergencies such as fractures, but also elective treatments. The generosity for “cosmetic” treatments has led to claims it is a perk rather than essential. Other courses on offer to MEPs include extended IVF treatments and drug rehabilitation.

Male MEPs and the husbands of female MEPs can also claim for private treatment to resolve problems with impotence. Viagra is available if the condition stems from serious illness. The guide also reveals MEPs and their families can stay up to 21 days at thermal health spas. The budget this year for MEPs’ sickness and accident insurance represents a 36 per cent increase on the £2.2million in 2009. (Source: Daily Express, Mar/11)

Next >>>