It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Fined £150million for failing to fly the EU flag

page: 1
4

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   
... Now British firms are told how to fight back

Source

Well, if anything, this article shows how companies that dig in to the the european fund would need to fly the EU flag, and therefore creating a dependancy that would ensure a more powerful EU superstate. Can british firms fight back ? Is that actually possible in the EU, ruled by alot of powerful people ??




Business chiefs have issued advice to companies and public bodies on how to escape heavy penalties for failing to display European Union flags after British organisations were fined an astonishing £150  million for not giving the EU enough publicity.


Companies receiving European grants must display its logo on their buildings, posters and websites or face being forced to pay back some of the funding. Now Yorkshire Forward, a regional development agency, has produced an 18-page booklet that advises organisations how to escape the punitive penalties.

The pamphlet details 'approved' versions of the EU flag, instructions on its colour and dimensions, and the precise wording that must accompany the logo. The rules also require building and infrastructure projects to display billboards and plaques praising the EU for providing funds.


Peace !




Edit : I found a thread related to the '' EU superstate '' idea here by Dermo.

[edit on 15/8/2010 by Unium]

[edit on 15/8/2010 by Unium]




posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 05:59 PM
link   
reply to post by Unium
 


Good read. Now when we see the display of this EU flag in the future we can view it with a grain of salt as to the party may have actually been forced to display it. I do wonder if parodies of a sort would be displayed in a show of principle as to the forcing of the flag in ways that incur fines.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:06 PM
link   
reply to post by Unium
 


Well, I suppose the simple answer is stop borrowing or asking for money from the EU and you won't have to keep advertising them. Benefactors to public radio and similar enterprises often request that their names are publicised, and with good reason; why would you bankroll someone if your generosity was to be entirely anonymous?

And yes, it is possible to 'fight back' against the EU - but unfortunately, for all the empty rhetoric of our citizenry, none of us are willing to vote politicians into power who will claw back what sovereignty has been ceded (and yes, I know people will jump on me and say that such an expression is a hyperbole; I assure you, it is not. It is in fact the very term used time and time again by the ECJ in it's jurisprudence) to Brussels.

When the proles awaken, then perhaps we might see change!



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:18 PM
link   
If I ever go to Belgium, I want to burn an EU flag, collect its ashes and post them to Brussels!
Did you know nearly half the EU budget goes towards subsidise farmers, and that over 80 percent of these farmers are worth more than One Million Euros? That around 9 billion euro is spent promoting the EU towards EU citizens?
That the Common Fisheries policy still demands that fishermen dump rare fish, back into the sea (in order not to exceed their quotas, by the time they return to port).

Did you know that all MEP’s have immunity from prosecution? (Unless it’s revoked by the EU parliament, which never happens). They could kill you, and without an EU parliament vote nothing much, would happen.

Look at a map of the Roman Empire, the Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, and the EU. Same pieces of land, different dictatorships (in the name of the people) (yet all lacking consent from the people).

The EU is the next Soviet Union-Nazi Germany. It’s already corrupt, and it wants to turn tyrannical (something I suspect will ultimately turn out to be against the interests, of the majority of today’s Europe’s rich, and poor.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
If I ever go to Belgium, I want to burn an EU flag, collect its ashes and post them to Brussels!
Did you know nearly half the EU budget goes towards subsidise farmers, and that over 80 percent of these farmers are worth more than One Million Euros? That around 9 billion euro is spent promoting the EU towards EU citizens?
That the Common Fisheries policy still demands that fishermen dump rare fish, back into the sea (in order not to exceed their quotas, by the time they return to port).

Did you know that all MEP’s have immunity from prosecution? (Unless it’s revoked by the EU parliament, which never happens). They could kill you, and without an EU parliament vote nothing much, would happen.

Look at a map of the Roman Empire, the Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, and the EU. Same pieces of land, different dictatorships (in the name of the people) (yet all lacking consent from the people).

The EU is the next Soviet Union-Nazi Germany. It’s already corrupt, and it wants to turn tyrannical (something I suspect will ultimately turn out to be against the interests, of the majority of today’s Europe’s rich, and poor.


Can you quote me any legal precedent or legislative instrument emanating from Brussels to that effect? As far as I was aware, the 'jurisdiction' theory of International law still applied to EU Member-States as to any other nation.

Although, I must confess, I do not actually know whether or not MEP's are considered to be international diplomats with accompanying diplomatic immunity... Can anyone inform me of the answer to that question?

EDIT: we the people do have a say as regards what to do with the EU. We do not have a direct say, but we are allowed to run as MEP's on an anti-EU bill and we are allowed to vote in MEP's who are anti-EU and members of our national legislative assemblies who are Euro-sceptic.

Unfortunately, we simply choose not to.

[edit on 15-8-2010 by duality90]



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
If I ever go to Belgium, I want to burn an EU flag, collect its ashes and post them to Brussels!
Did you know nearly half the EU budget goes towards subsidise farmers, and that over 80 percent of these farmers are worth more than One Million Euros? That around 9 billion euro is spent promoting the EU towards EU citizens?
That the Common Fisheries policy still demands that fishermen dump rare fish, back into the sea (in order not to exceed their quotas, by the time they return to port).

Did you know that all MEP’s have immunity from prosecution? (Unless it’s revoked by the EU parliament, which never happens). They could kill you, and without an EU parliament vote nothing much, would happen.

Look at a map of the Roman Empire, the Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, and the EU. Same pieces of land, different dictatorships (in the name of the people) (yet all lacking consent from the people).

The EU is the next Soviet Union-Nazi Germany. It’s already corrupt, and it wants to turn tyrannical (something I suspect will ultimately turn out to be against the interests, of the majority of today’s Europe’s rich, and poor.


Can you quote me any legal precedent or legislative instrument emanating from Brussels to that effect? As far as I was aware, the 'jurisdiction' theory of International law still applied to EU Member-States as to any other nation.

Although, I must confess, I do not actually know whether or not MEP's are considered to be international diplomats with accompanying diplomatic immunity... Can anyone inform me of the answer to that question?



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 06:41 PM
link   
I don’t know the law responsible, but reading up on it, it seems the immunity from prosecution has to be waived by the EU court (so I was wrong about it being the parliament!!!) certainly this was the case in Ashley Mote’s case en.wikipedia.org...

Just Google: MEP "immunity from prosecution” www.google.co.uk...

I know they're immunity to be fact, but the lack of information (although still clearly there on Google) seems to suggest someone's been sponsoring Google Censorship (probably with taxpayer's money!)

Oh another thing: Rather than destroy its surplus food (as it used to do) the EU makes food prices for EU citizens (in order to help farmers) by subsidsing the "dumping" of our food, onto African markets (thereby worsening African poverty, since nearly half of African jobs, are linked to agriculture).
www.google.co.uk...

Problem is many people who support the EU don't understand the reasons why they support it, is because they've obayed what other peoples TV-ideas have told them to think.



posted on Aug, 15 2010 @ 11:32 PM
link   
It's obvious from the beginning that the E.U. was going to turn into a "United States of Europe". The E.U. was created, as I understand it, largely without the knowledge and consent of the various people across Europe, and was undemocratically forced upon them.



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by KJ_Lesnick
The E.U. was created, as I understand it, largely without the knowledge and consent of the various people across Europe, and was undemocratically forced upon them.


Forced upon us undemocratically by our democratically elected leaders whom we elected to lead our countries??????

Where is the democratic issue?

If there is one, would that not mean every democratic country is completely undemocratic because the leader doesn't ask every person about every decision?



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984Look at a map of the Roman Empire, the Napoleonic France, Nazi Germany, and the EU. Same pieces of land, different dictatorships (in the name of the people) (yet all lacking consent from the people).

The EU is the next Soviet Union-Nazi Germany. It’s already corrupt, and it wants to turn tyrannical (something I suspect will ultimately turn out to be against the interests, of the majority of today’s Europe’s rich, and poor.


What are you on about???

You guys could take over half the world and wipe out scores of millions of people.. Even us Irish beside you.. And that was obviously fine.. No problems with that..
But when the EU peacefully join the most troublesome, fragmented, violent and wealthiest region on the planet through peaceful means by using the elected leaders of various states to pool sovereignty.. Then thats a problem??? But its ok when you guys wipe out half the planet for profit..

And finally, you are going on about the EU giving farm grants to farmers.. Em, if they didn't, you wouldn't have any farmers, just overgrown land because everything would be imported from cheaper regions outside Europe.

Your leaders have clearly copped onto the fact that the EU is best future for Europe.. Because even non EU supporters in power now are moving mover more consolidation of sovereignty and a position of leverage inside it..

Deal with it. Unification is a massive milestone for our civilization and the EU is a step towards that. If you don't agree with that concept, then you have never had an intelligent thought on the matter.

[edit on 16/8/10 by Dermo]



posted on Aug, 16 2010 @ 04:06 AM
link   

Originally posted by duality90
Can anyone inform me of the answer to that question?


If an MEP did kill someone and was covered under Diplomatic immunity, it would be publicized so much that it would be revoked in the EU parliament and they would get done for the crime in whichever state that committed it.

I don't see why its such a big deal, I know a couple of MEP's personally.. Can't see them going around killing people for sport tbh hahaha..



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:12 PM
link   
Originally posted by Dermo

Forced upon us undemocratically by our democratically elected leaders whom we elected to lead our countries

Where is the democratic issue?


Democracy is supposed to be government for the people, by the people. But under the recent Lisbon Treaty, EU democracy is government: imposed against the wishes of the majority of English people, on behalf of our elected representative (i.e. our MP’s) through their appointed representative (such as the unelected Belgium EU president-“the old git”).

I hope you realise (as well as I) that the people who are presented to the public (by the Con-Lab parties), for election are not often representative of the public at all. You see it physically by the fact most are nearly all men, with privileged backgrounds, and tendencies to the left of British people, and seldomly to the right.

There are many ways this is true politically, be it the absence of any EU referendums since 1973 when we voted to join the European Economic Community. Despite disagreeing massively, with today’s forced, European Union, I agree with the 1973 decision to join a EEC

More domestic indications of democratic failure are: The pointless Iraq-Afghanistan wars, decades of abuse in our benefit culture that has made hundreds of thousands of people richer on handouts, than finding their own job. It could be the lack of prisons, or that prisons that make people work (or just provide more affordable conditions). It could be the lack of teacher discipline, or the spending of millions to provide government leaflets in e.g. Welsh or even Africanize.

But despite various (perfectly blatant) cross-party conspiracies to ignore public opinion at least Con-Lab is composed of candidates directly elected, by the British public.
But to use our national representatives, to bypass the will of Europeans as an (apparently) more representative way of expressing the European people, only works to ensure that Europeans are more easily ignored (and therefore a very undemocratic mechanism).
Incidentally the Soviet Union also used a system of lower and higher political classes appointing themselves to the heights of power. Just another indication that Europe’s history as a “well meaning” dictatorship will eventually re-emerge. After all even Stalin-Hitler believed they’re power was “well meaning”!!!

Signs The Public Opinion is Being Ignored, and National Interest Ruined…

Even though I support entry into the EEC, I must concede Britain surrendered too much of our fishing waters. As despite having 80 percent of the fish, our quota was just 37 percent
blogs.telegraph.co.uk...
Since then the Common Fishing Policy has undoubtedly devastated fish stocks. Some 880,000 tonnes of catched, dead fish, are fumped in EU waters every year. Not to please some demon god, but merely fulfil EU bureaucracy and add £186 to the average family’s food bill: www.taxpayersalliance.com...

The EEC also forced Britain to impose tariffs on its Commonwealth (whilst previously there had been none). Today the EU still imposes its “Common External Tariff” which protects high food prices the most. Therefore the average tariff for countries with GDP of £15,000 pa is 1.6% whilst for poor countries with GDP under £5000, the average tariff is 6.8% www.civitas.org.uk...
(Poor countries tend to employ up to half of all people in agriculture, and food production tends to be a much bigger part of whatever economy-trade they actually have).

Meanwhile the EU continues to encourage over food production. Rather than letting EU prices fall (and hit e.g. powerful French farmers!) they now dump the food onto African markets causing massive poverty.
www.globalissues.org...

Whilst retarding the economic development of 3rd world countries with one hand, the EU uses its citizens as a crop, to finance “forced charity” to finance e.g. 30 billion EU of inefficient aid to Africa
news.bbc.co.uk...

BUT: EU Aid Isn’t Working, -less efficient than the U.K government
www.openeurope.org.uk...

From above source

EU aid is not focussed enough on the poorest countries. The share of the UK aid budget going to low income countries went up from 62% to 81% between 1990 and 2004. But the EU has been moving in the opposite direction. The share of the EU aid budget going to low income countries fell from 63% to just 32% over the same period. The UK has been moving away from the old-fashioned use of aid as a political lever, which was locked in by the Government’s decision to make DFID independent of the Foreign Office in 1997. In contrast the EU increasingly uses its aid budget to buy political agreement for EU policies – particularly its controversial trade policies


Like the French Revolution, State Atheism (that killed tens of millions in both Russia & Europe) and much of modern day “political correctness” the EU is a political movement led by men-bureaucrats who (like the later movements) arrogantly proclaim themselves to be enlightened.
The EU is going end the same way…


Turnout has also been falling steadily since the first elections in 1979 indicating increased apathy about the Parliament despite its increase in power over that period. The turnout is an increasingly big issue.

en.wikipedia.org...

So perhaps its because (according to many EU advocates) “Britain is at the heart of Europe” that our 2009, EU election, turnout, magnifies the declining trend by coming at 34.4%
www.europarl.org.uk...

In the May 2010, British, national elections, turnout was 65.1% (this link shows turnout since 1945) www.ukpolitical.info...

So if its important in a democracy, that people turn out to vote; surely we should be conducting more of our business within our borders (where turnout is high) rather than continue giving power to the EU which has only lost (U.K-Europe wide) support as its been given more control over our lives?



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 01:51 PM
link   
Originally posted by Dermo

And finally, you are going on about the EU giving farm grants to farmers.. Em, if they didn't, you wouldn't have any farmers, just overgrown land because everything would be imported from cheaper regions outside Europe.


Complete rubbish: Europe has some of the most productive farmland in (literally) all the world. Our soil, rainy weather, and generally hot summers, means that as long as there are people to feed here, it will always make sense to grow food here.
The subsidies have enabled inefficient (mainly French-German) farms to continue with outdated practices, and micro-small holdings. It’s raised food prices for the consumer, harmed 3rd world trade, and burned their agriculture with our subsidised, surplus EU, food, exports.

Despite the fact Europe produces too much food, the Common Agriculture Policy continues to encourage food production. Most European farmers are either asset or income rich, and that’s why over 80% of nearly half the EU budget (i.e. the cost of CAP), goes to the rich.

My family runs one of the most productive farms in all of Britain. Without CAP we would continue to a fortune (maybe a little less) but probably far more than we were even in the 1990’s (given the now rapidly escalating, price of food). This price is driven by world population growth, and economic development (very little to do with production costs). So the rise is unlikely to go away, I act against my own interests when I oppose subsidies, but I speak up for the truth.

If we are to subsidise food production, then it should be Organic Food –eco friendly methods, and new technology, rather than subsidising surplus production of things grown by rapping the land-mother nature.
If we are to subsidise food, then the subsidise should fall with rising e.g. grain prices, and rise with lowering prices. All it does at the moment is cost the EU taxpayer the same every tear (adjusted for inflation) regardless of agricultural prices-conditions.

CAP will be here in another 30 years, because it’s a product of vested interests and EU corruption. That is the only reason for such a damaging, un environmentally friendly, and (today) wholly unnecessary policy.

Originally posted by Dermo

Unification is a massive milestone for our civilization and the EU is a step towards that. If you don't agree with that concept, then you have never had an intelligent thought on the matter.


What an open minded thing to say? If you (as an EU supporter) have any trouble seeing how Europe (could for 4th time) become a dictatorship, then perhaps you should listen to yourself first? Really: rarely have I heard such dismissive "thought" on ATS.

I disagree because the history of entire human race has been consistent about one thing: Big something is usually less efficient, and than a smaller something (the obvious only exception being military Defence). A massive farm, works less well than the same farm divided into 4 bits. This is because when you put more responsibility into peoples hands, you receive more of their brainpower-time & effort. That’s why total Soviet food production always remained lower under collectivisation, than before (even if it did employ less people, because the old "surplus" were starved-killed).

Big companies & organisations often find they can’t grow beyond a certain point because they’re growing insensitivity & necessitated bureaucracy becomes too much. Communism- had the same problem, so too does the EU (and long will the problem continue because no one in human history has managed to adequately solve it!)



posted on Aug, 22 2010 @ 03:09 PM
link   
Hey,

Sorry mate, I agree with only about 20% of what you said and could not be arsed getting into the same pro/anti EU argument with another person on this site when I've heard it all before, over and over and over... I've countered those arguments several times before and apart from copying and pasting them from previous threads, you're posts are too long to get into..

Everyone's entitled to their views. If you don't like the EU, then fight to stop it.

If you're British, I understand the psychology of where you're coming from etc etc - even though most of you guys have never copped it.. But saying Unification is not our future is where I draw the line in taking someone's views seriously.

Peace.

D



new topics

top topics



 
4

log in

join