Adding to the growing evidence that public figures and the media have little idea of how we are now governed, we retail below several recent examples.

The first in line would have been seen by watchers of the Murnaghan programme on Sky yesterday, when they were treated to a dissertation from the tight-lipped Anne McIntosh, MP. She heads up the EFRA Select Committee and has been voluble in the Commons (pictured above) about imposing an import ban on processed foods, to prevent products adulterated with horsemeat reaching British consumers.

As she had done in the Commons, she cited an old case from 1979, known as the "Cassis de Dijon", in justification of an import ban. She argued that this French low alcohol product, which had been refused an import license by the German authorities, provided a precedent for a temporary ban while the issues were sorted out.

Read here... http://www.eureferendum....ogview.aspx?blogno=83637

Edited by user 18 February 2013 14:07:40(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I caught the end of the interview with Ms McIntosh where she rather smugly stated that she had practiced EU Law as if that was the final say in the discussion. Parliament seems to be full of this sort - lawyers and barristers who clearly are not good enough to make a decent living at law and subsequently use their qualifications as some sort of entry ticket into the Public Trough. They rank even lower than accountants in my view.

There seemed to be two sorts of people with hostile comments, those basically attacking Paterson for being a Tory, and those who just couldn't accept that food safety was an EU competence, meaning that the UK government has very little control over it.

It seems as if opinion in the HoC is much the same.

Apologies if this is the wrong section to post this question but there is an indirect link as it relates to food and drink.

Given that NHS executives generally appear either to get promoted or generously paid off when they preside over the deaths of hundreds or thousands of patients, I wondered what the true angle is on the "fizzy drink" tax since it obviously isn't concern for the welfare of ordinary people.

I came across this http://www.epha.org/a/4814 which suggests to me an indirect EU link rather like the homosexual marriage position via the Council of Europe recommendation.

Am I right or talking rubbish?!

Edited by user 18 February 2013 23:37:24(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

I recently wrote an article on the European Gendarmerie Force (EUROGENDFOR) and sent a copy to my MP. He replied and thanked me for 'bringing this to his attention'! I couldn't believe that he didn't know about this very important subject. Just shows.