Originally posted by northernladyuk
View Post
- Visitors can check out the Forum FAQ by clicking this link. You have to register before you can post: click the REGISTER link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. View our Forum Privacy Policy.
- Want to receive the latest contracting news and advice straight to your inbox? Sign up to the ContractorUK newsletter here. Every sign up will also be entered into a draw to WIN £100 Amazon vouchers!
European Commission isn't happy with us
Collapse
X
-
Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much. -
Think it does say ECJ (as per my reply) in the article, although I'd agree it's difficult to tell the ECJ and the EUC (and their objectives) apart.
So you think that if I got a speeding ticket I'd not have to pay the 'fine' because the case was brought retrospectively. Does that sound right? Only if you're a shortsighted Europhile (this is my new insult to remainers).Comment
-
Originally posted by NigelJK View PostThink it does say ECJ (as per my reply) in the article, although I'd agree it's difficult to tell the ECJ and the EUC (and their objectives) apart.
So you think that if I got a speeding ticket I'd not have to pay the 'fine' because the case was brought retrospectively. Does that sound right? Only if you're a shortsighted Europhile (this is my new insult to remainers).Comment
-
Originally posted by vetran View PostBetter tell the BBC then its their story.
June 2002: Commission asks European Court to impose daily fines of £100,000 against France
As an aside, I do blame Thatcher for abolishing O levels, with their more rigorous English Language comprehension test. It has been downhill ever since, and it is a parlous background against which to hold a national referendum on such a complex matter. But it is done now, and I fear that those who supported Brexit will be those least equipped to deal with it.Comment
-
Originally posted by northernladyuk View PostThe relevant part of the article, I think, is:
It doesn't look to me as if the BBC article states that the Commission can fine anyone.
As an aside, I do blame Thatcher for abolishing O levels, with their more rigorous English Language comprehension test. It has been downhill ever since, and it is a parlous background against which to hold a national referendum on such a complex matter. But it is done now, and I fear that those who supported Brexit will be those least equipped to deal with it.
Strange the bit of the story I quoted seems to disagree with you, how are you doing on the AssGuru logic free method course then?
France has escaped the threat of huge fines from the European Commission over its illegal ban on British beef imports.
The Commission withdrew the proposed $161,400 (£100,000) a-day penalties against France because they cannot be imposed retrospectively.Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much.Comment
-
Originally posted by BlasterBates View PostGood job we're leaving the EU, won't have to put with that anymore.
The greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world that he didn't existComment
-
I think the law should be appliedComment
-
Originally posted by LondonManc View PostIndeed. We can sue them for polluting us"You’re just a bad memory who doesn’t know when to go away" JRComment
-
Originally posted by vetran View PostStrange the bit of the story I quoted seems to disagree with you, how are you doing on the AssGuru logic free method course then?
The Commission had applied to the court for the hefty daily fines until France agreed to accept British beef, but the case was still pending when France lifted its ban.
HTHBIDIComment
-
Originally posted by NigelJK View PostSo do I, the French owe the ECJ around 7.2M euro's. I think we (as a full member of the EU) should also ensure that the damage to our economy is also repaid in full, wouldn't want the criminals getting away with it again would we?
In terms of criminality, was a criminal law broken? If so, which one?
In terms of damage, is France legally accountable for that damage? If so, on what legal basis?Comment
- Home
- News & Features
- First Timers
- IR35 / S660 / BN66
- Employee Benefit Trusts
- Agency Workers Regulations
- MSC Legislation
- Limited Companies
- Dividends
- Umbrella Company
- VAT / Flat Rate VAT
- Job News & Guides
- Money News & Guides
- Guide to Contracts
- Successful Contracting
- Contracting Overseas
- Contractor Calculators
- MVL
- Contractor Expenses
Advertisers
Contractor Services
CUK News
- Streamline Your Retirement with iSIPP: A Solution for Contractor Pensions Sep 1 09:13
- Making the most of pension lump sums: overview for contractors Sep 1 08:36
- Umbrella company tribunal cases are opening up; are your wages subject to unlawful deductions, too? Aug 31 08:38
- Contractors, relabelling 'labour' as 'services' to appear 'fully contracted out' won't dupe IR35 inspectors Aug 31 08:30
- How often does HMRC check tax returns? Aug 30 08:27
- Work-life balance as an IT contractor: 5 top tips from a tech recruiter Aug 30 08:20
- Autumn Statement 2023 tipped to prioritise mental health, in a boost for UK workplaces Aug 29 08:33
- Final reminder for contractors to respond to the umbrella consultation (closing today) Aug 29 08:09
- Top 5 most in demand cyber security contract roles Aug 25 08:38
- Changes to the right to request flexible working are incoming, but how will contractors be affected? Aug 24 08:25
Comment