On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had overturned
a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't challenge this
- I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being referred to. And
despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in the
pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew would be
against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both of his
statements, I'd be grateful.

--
*Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a conqueror.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 1:52:22 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had overturned
a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't challenge this
- I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being referred to. And
despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in the
pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew would be
against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both of his
statements, I'd be grateful.

--
*Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a conqueror.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 06:28:14 -0700, Halmyre wrote:

On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had
overturned a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't
challenge this - I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being
referred to. And despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in the
pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew would
be against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both of his
statements, I'd be grateful.

The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish
government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol
pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws. Note
the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being set in
tablets of stone.

Yup. What the ECJ said last December was that the minimum pricing MIGHT
be restrictive to free trade, if it prevented cheaper suppliers from
elsewhere in the EU from competing through reduced pricing.

What they ALSO said was that the ultimate decision was in the hands of
NATIONAL COURTS. They also explicitly said that, if the minimum pricing
could be shown to have a health benefit that couldn't be achieved in a
more general way, then it wouldn't be a problem... But, generally,
increasing pricing through general tax would be a better solution.

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...n/pdf/2015-12/
cp150155en.pdf

In article ,
Adrian wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 06:28:14 -0700, Halmyre wrote:

On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had
overturned a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't
challenge this - I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being
referred to. And despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in the
pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew would
be against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both of his
statements, I'd be grateful.

The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish
government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol
pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws. Note
the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being set in
tablets of stone.

Yup. What the ECJ said last December was that the minimum pricing MIGHT
be restrictive to free trade, if it prevented cheaper suppliers from
elsewhere in the EU from competing through reduced pricing.

What they ALSO said was that the ultimate decision was in the hands of
NATIONAL COURTS. They also explicitly said that, if the minimum pricing
could be shown to have a health benefit that couldn't be achieved in a
more general way, then it wouldn't be a problem... But, generally,
increasing pricing through general tax would be a better solution.

http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/d...n/pdf/2015-12/
cp150155en.pdf

Thanks guys. Must watch it again to see if I got the wrong end of the
stick. My impression was he was definite it had already been over-ruled.
If it hasn't been passed and then over-ruled no wonder I couldn't find
details.

--
*There are 3 kinds of people: those who can count & those who can't.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Thanks guys. Must watch it again to see if I got the wrong end of the
stick. My impression was he was definite it had already been over-ruled.
If it hasn't been passed and then over-ruled no wonder I couldn't find
details.

I've just watched it again. He was perfectly clear that the Act had been
passed by the Scottish Parliament and overturned by the EU court. No ifs
or buts.

What raised my suspicions is that if this had happened, it would have been
headline news.

--
*I have plenty of talent and vision. I just don't care.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

On 21/06/2016 14:28, Halmyre wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 1:52:22 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had overturned
a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't challenge this
- I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being referred to. And
despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in the
pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew would be
against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both of his
statements, I'd be grateful.

--
*Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a conqueror.


The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws. Note the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being set in tablets of stone.


IMHO a little DIY would show the terms of the ECJ judgment are different
from, and more forceful than, that summary.

In the words of that bastion of anti-EU rhetoric, The Guardian:

" HEADLINE: Minimum alcohol price in Scotland breaches EU law, court rules

Strapline: Court says plan passed by Holyrood justified only if it was
more proportionate and effective than tax measures

The European court has ruled that the Scottish governments plan to
impose a blanket minimum price for alcohol is in breach of EU free-trade
laws.

In a significant blow to one of Nicola Sturgeons flagship policies, the
European court of justice (ECJ) said the policy could be justified on
health grounds under EU law only if it was more proportionate and
effective than using general taxation.

Using taxation would still allow retailers to set their own prices, and
compete against each other. Imposing a 50p per unit minimum price on
alcoholic drinks €“ a policy the Scottish parliament passed with
cross-party support €“ would restrict retailers in doing so.

Nicola Sturgeon vows to fight for minimum alcohol price in Scotland

The ECJ returned the case to Scotlands civil courts for a final ruling,
but said: €œThe court of justice considers that the effect of the
Scottish legislation is significantly to restrict the market, and this
might be avoided by the introduction of a tax measure designed to
increase the price of alcohol instead of a measure imposing a minimum
price per unit of alcohol.€�"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...aw-court-rules

Please bear in mind that it was a reference from the Scottish court to
the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. So it was not for the ECJ to decide
the dispute - at least, not at this stage.

--
Robin
reply-to address is (intended to be) valid

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:42:49 +0100, Robin wrote:

The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish
government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol
pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws. Note
the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being set in
tablets of stone.

IMHO a little DIY would show the terms of the ECJ judgment are different
from, and more forceful than, that summary.

Which is why I already posted a link to the actual ECJ press release,
which contained a link to the full (and verbose) judgement.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:06:38 +0100, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:

What raised my suspicions is that if this had happened, it would have
been headline news.

It was certainly covered widely at the time.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-35160396

In article , Halmyre
wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 1:52:22 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had
overturned a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't
challenge this - I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being
referred to. And despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in the
pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew would
be against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both of his
statements, I'd be grateful.

-- *Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a
conqueror.


The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish
government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol pricing,
saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws. Note the
caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being set in
tablets of stone.

and the relevant bit of the EU would be the European Court - not the whole
system.

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Thanks guys. Must watch it again to see if I got the wrong end of the
stick. My impression was he was definite it had already been over-ruled.
If it hasn't been passed and then over-ruled no wonder I couldn't find
details.

I've just watched it again. He was perfectly clear that the Act had been
passed by the Scottish Parliament and overturned by the EU court. No ifs
or buts.

What raised my suspicions is that if this had happened, it would have been
headline news.

well it was

but perhaps not in the way that Howard presented it

tim

In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Thanks guys. Must watch it again to see if I got the wrong end of the
stick. My impression was he was definite it had already been
over-ruled. If it hasn't been passed and then over-ruled no wonder I
couldn't find details.

I've just watched it again. He was perfectly clear that the Act had
been passed by the Scottish Parliament and overturned by the EU court.
No ifs or buts.

What raised my suspicions is that if this had happened, it would have
been headline news.

well it was

but perhaps not in the way that Howard presented it

Howard told a deliberate lie. Knowing it was likely so obscure the
presenter wouldn't pick up on it. But given how many lies the BREXIT lot
tell, only to be expected.

Seems the Scotch Whisky association or whatever wasn't happy with the law.
Because not only did it raise the price of Bucky or whatever, but also the
price of a bottle of Scotch.

The EU court said it might well infringe EU laws on competition, but sent
it back to the Scottish High court to decide on.

It's one of those bits of legislation that might well have the best of
intentions, but not thought through. Which we are riddled with.

--
*My wife has a slight impediment in her speech. She stops to breathe.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
tim... wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
Thanks guys. Must watch it again to see if I got the wrong end of the
stick. My impression was he was definite it had already been
over-ruled. If it hasn't been passed and then over-ruled no wonder I
couldn't find details.

I've just watched it again. He was perfectly clear that the Act had
been passed by the Scottish Parliament and overturned by the EU court.
No ifs or buts.

What raised my suspicions is that if this had happened, it would have
been headline news.

well it was

but perhaps not in the way that Howard presented it

Howard told a deliberate lie. Knowing it was likely so obscure the
presenter wouldn't pick up on it. But given how many lies the BREXIT lot
tell, only to be expected.

Seems the Scotch Whisky association or whatever wasn't happy with the law.
Because not only did it raise the price of Bucky or whatever, but also the
price of a bottle of Scotch.

The EU court said it might well infringe EU laws on competition, but sent
it back to the Scottish High court to decide on.

It's one of those bits of legislation that might well have the best of
intentions, but not thought through. Which we are riddled with.

There's always the "Law of Unitended Consequences"

--
from KT24 in Surrey, England

On Tue, 21 Jun 2016 16:42:49 +0100, Robin wrote:

On 21/06/2016 14:28, Halmyre wrote:
The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws. Note the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being set in tablets of stone.


IMHO a little DIY would show the terms of the ECJ judgment are different
from, and more forceful than, that summary.

In the words of that bastion of anti-EU rhetoric, The Guardian:

More importantly, the rabidly anti-SNP Guardian.

" HEADLINE: Minimum alcohol price in Scotland breaches EU law, court rules

Strapline: Court says plan passed by Holyrood justified only if it was
more proportionate and effective than tax measures

The Headline doesn't agree with the strapline or the URL.

The European court has ruled that the Scottish government’s plan to
impose a blanket minimum price for alcohol is in breach of EU free-trade
laws.

In a significant blow to one of Nicola Sturgeon’s flagship policies, the
European court of justice (ECJ) said the policy could be justified on
health grounds under EU law only if it was more proportionate and
effective than using general taxation.

The SNP have no control over relevant taxes, they're all reserved.

Using taxation would still allow retailers to set their own prices, and
compete against each other. Imposing a 50p per unit minimum price on
alcoholic drinks – a policy the Scottish parliament passed with
cross-party support – would restrict retailers in doing so.

Nicola Sturgeon vows to fight for minimum alcohol price in Scotland

The ECJ returned the case to Scotland’s civil courts for a final ruling,
but said: “The court of justice considers that the effect of the
Scottish legislation is significantly to restrict the market, and this
might be avoided by the introduction of a tax measure designed to
increase the price of alcohol instead of a measure imposing a minimum
price per unit of alcohol.”"

https://www.theguardian.com/society/...aw-court-rules

Please bear in mind that it was a reference from the Scottish court to
the ECJ for a preliminary ruling. So it was not for the ECJ to decide
the dispute - at least, not at this stage.

So if they haven't decided Howard was lying.

No idea, but its never stopped the French in the past, who just ignore the
ones they don't like.

All of these things depend on everyone obeying the rules, if several
countries say no, and don't do it are they really going to send troops in to
enforce it? No of course not.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had overturned
a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't challenge this
- I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being referred to. And
despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in the
pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew would be
against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both of his
statements, I'd be grateful.

--
*Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a
conqueror.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

There is also the snooping law, which I believe the EU feel breaches human
rights laws.
Brian

--
----- -
This newsgroup posting comes to you directly from...
The Sofa of Brian Gaff...

Blind user, so no pictures please!
"Halmyre" wrote in message
...
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 1:52:22 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had overturned
a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't challenge this
- I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being referred to. And
despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in the
pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew would be
against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both of his
statements, I'd be grateful.

--
*Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a
conqueror.


The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish
government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol pricing,
saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws. Note the caveats.
This of course has been jumped on by some as being set in tablets of stone.

On 22/06/2016 10:43, Brian Gaff wrote:
No idea, but its never stopped the French in the past, who just ignore the
ones they don't like.

Still remember the French sticking two fingers to the union (i.e. UK)
when delaying the introduction of British beef for three year after the
Mad Cow disease crisis.

Never trusted them to do anything that does not put their own interests
first before that, and definitely not after.

On 21/06/2016 14:28, Halmyre wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 1:52:22 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had overturned
a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't challenge this
- I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being referred to. And
despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in the
pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew would be
against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both of his
statements, I'd be grateful.

--
*Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a conqueror.


The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws. Note the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being set in tablets of stone.

Whether it is or isn't overtured isn't the point - the simple fact that
the such a local law can even be looked at by the EU is!

On 22/06/16 22:29, Steve Walker wrote:

The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish
government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol
pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws.
Note the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being
set in tablets of stone.

Whether it is or isn't overtured isn't the point - the simple fact that
the such a local law can even be looked at by the EU is!

Yeah. Wait till they ban alcohol altogether because it offends a certain
sector of the population...


--
"What do you think about Gay Marriage?"
"I don't."
"Don't what?"
"Think about Gay Marriage."

In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/06/2016 14:28, Halmyre wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 1:52:22 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had
overturned a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't
challenge this - I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being
referred to. And despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in
the pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew
would be against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both
of his statements, I'd be grateful.

-- *Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a
conqueror.


The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish
government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol
pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws.
Note the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being
set in tablets of stone.

Whether it is or isn't overtured isn't the point - the simple fact that
the such a local law can even be looked at by the EU is!

Rather typical of one who simply reads headlines. Exactly how the meja
shapes the opinions of the gullible.

If you did a little research, you'd soon find out the reason why the EU
got involved. But knowing at least some of the true facts isn't what a
lynch party wants.

--
*I love cats...they taste just like chicken.

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
On 22/06/16 22:29, Steve Walker wrote:

The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish
government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol
pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws.
Note the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being
set in tablets of stone.

Whether it is or isn't overtured isn't the point - the simple fact that
the such a local law can even be looked at by the EU is!

Yeah. Wait till they ban alcohol altogether because it offends a certain
sector of the population...

That is never going to happen. Not with pork either.

On Thursday, 23 June 2016 00:49:34 UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Steve Walker wrote:
On 21/06/2016 14:28, Halmyre wrote:
On Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 1:52:22 PM UTC+1, Dave Plowman (News)
wrote:
On yesterday's Newsnight, Michael Howard stated that the EU had
overturned a law passed by the Scottish parliament. Evan Davis didn't
challenge this - I'd guess, like me he didn't know what was being
referred to. And despite some Googling, I can't find out either.

And then stated it was very likely to do the same with a UK one in
the pipeline. Which wasn't expanded on or challenged either.

I'd be surprised if the UK government introduced a bill they knew
would be against EU law, but who knows? If anyone can explain both
of his statements, I'd be grateful.

-- *Kill one man and you're a murderer, kill a million youand 're a
conqueror.


The nearest I can find is that the EU *might* overturn the Scottish
government's *proposal* (law not yet passed) for minimum alcohol
pricing, saying it *might* be in contravention of free-trade laws.
Note the caveats. This of course has been jumped on by some as being
set in tablets of stone.

Whether it is or isn't overtured isn't the point - the simple fact that
the such a local law can even be looked at by the EU is!

Rather typical of one who simply reads headlines. Exactly how the meja
shapes the opinions of the gullible.

If you did a little research, you'd soon find out the reason why the EU
got involved. But knowing at least some of the true facts isn't what a
lynch party wants.


Any thoughts on this.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016...told-to-cover/