Let's see the supposed "democratic" system in action then. EU bans incandescent bulbs

hatrickpatrick

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230961.stm

Now I for one absolutely loathe the CFL bulbs and I'm quite certain that I'm not alone. Ireland had already banned 100 watt ones but you could still buy 60 and 80 watts. The EU plans to completely phase them out.

As an Irish citizen who is wholeheartedly opposed to this, how is it easier for me to challenge the EU decision than it would be if it was an Irish decision? Because I have a funny feeling it would be far easier to challenge it in Ireland.

Even if I convince everyone in the country to campaign against it and we succeed in changing our MEP's minds, they don't have enough power on their own to command any sort of majority. So that's no use. If it was a national decision I would only have to convince a majority of the TDs in Ireland to vote against it. It would still be difficult, but at least it's possible.

How do the defenders and deniers of the democratic deficit propose that we could prevent this directive coming into force, and how to you back up your claims that this would be easier than doing so in our national parliament?

marco_polo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230961.stm

Now I for one absolutely loathe the CFL bulbs and I'm quite certain that I'm not alone. Ireland had already banned 100 watt ones but you could still buy 60 and 80 watts. The EU plans to completely phase them out.

As an Irish citizen who is wholeheartedly opposed to this, how is it easier for me to challenge the EU decision than it would be if it was an Irish decision? Because I have a funny feeling it would be far easier to challenge it in Ireland.

Even if I convince everyone in the country to campaign against it and we succeed in changing our MEP's minds, they don't have enough power on their own to command any sort of majority. So that's no use. If it was a national decision I would only have to convince a majority of the TDs in Ireland to vote against it. It would still be difficult, but at least it's possible.

How do the defenders and deniers of the democratic deficit propose that we could prevent this directive coming into force, and how to you back up your claims that this would be easier than doing so in our national parliament?

Do you really need to fake outrage over a non issue in order to make a point against the EU? We are already in the EU and it has competancy over many environmental issues.

Why not vote yes to Lisbon. Then you can start a campaign to withdraw from the EU under the new clause in the treaty. Once that is complete you can elect a goverment that will reinstate light your beloved light bulbs, leaded petrol, remove those pesky water safety standards, carbon emmision targets, Health and Safety standrds and rollback recycling initiatives.

hatrickpatrick

marco_polo wrote: »

Do you really need to fake outrage over a non issue in order to make a point against the EU? We are already in the EU and it has competancy over many environmental issues.

I'm not faking outrage. I think a lot of people would agree on how gloomy most CFL bulbs are.

Why not vote yes to Lisbon. Then you can start a campaign to withdraw from the EU under the new clause in the treaty. Once that is complete you can elect a goverment that will reinstate light your beloved light bulbs, leaded petrol, remove those pesky water safety standards, carbon emmision targets, Health and Safety standrds and rollback recycling initiatives.

Is your answer to EVERYTHING "leave the EU"? Have you more or less just confirmed that it's not democratic, since apparently our only option is to accept the decisions of "the powers that be" (who?) or leave the organization altogether?

People have been claiming that the Lisbon treaty allows citizens to challenge EU rules as they could not do before. The purpose of this thread was to find out exactly how we could test that on this policy.

ixtlan

Well there are a few important things to take into account here...

Firstly we, the Irish have been one of the primary pushers of this. You may recall this being in the news quite some time ago in the context of the Greens wishing to impose these restrictions and the comments then were about how the EU would stop us from banning incandescent light-bulbs, so we had to wait for them to catch up to our wishes. So it is certainly not the case that we are being out-ruled in this matter.

Secondly, while everyone would accept that there are issues with florescent lightbulbs, the overriding good will be served by implementing this restriction. By that I mean that we have to reduce our energy usage, for simple economic reasons (energy is going to get more expensive) and for environmental reasons (to try to mitigate global warming).

So, you are correct that it would be difficult for you to effect a change in this policy, but would you accept that the reason it will be difficult is that this is the right decision to make and most politicians from whatever state will see that to be the case? Not because the influence of the Irish is small.


Ix

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230961.stm

Now I for one absolutely loathe the CFL bulbs and I'm quite certain that I'm not alone. Ireland had already banned 100 watt ones but you could still buy 60 and 80 watts. The EU plans to completely phase them out.

As an Irish citizen who is wholeheartedly opposed to this, how is it easier for me to challenge the EU decision than it would be if it was an Irish decision? Because I have a funny feeling it would be far easier to challenge it in Ireland.

Even if I convince everyone in the country to campaign against it and we succeed in changing our MEP's minds, they don't have enough power on their own to command any sort of majority. So that's no use. If it was a national decision I would only have to convince a majority of the TDs in Ireland to vote against it. It would still be difficult, but at least it's possible.

How do the defenders and deniers of the democratic deficit propose that we could prevent this directive coming into force, and how to you back up your claims that this would be easier than doing so in our national parliament?

You know, the way you've set that question up reflects your own prejudices, and produces exactly the difficulty you've found. You're comparing apples with oranges.

Why would you challenge European legislation only in Ireland? Why are you relying only on Irish MEPs?

You're thinking inside a box here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ixtlan

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not faking outrage. I think a lot of people would agree on how gloomy most CFL bulbs are.

It's true there are issues. The inability to dim is another issue. I assume that's why only the 100+ are being phased out currently. By the time we get to 100- maybe other technologies may be cheap enough to be options, LED/OLED.

The question is whether the issues outweigh the benefits and I would humbly suggest that they do not. If you could take an EU-wide vote on this I'm not sure what the result would be. However I know that if the question asked were "Should we try to mitigate global warming? Should we try to reduce energy usage" the answer would be overwhelmingly yes. So I don't think giving up these bulbs is such a huge sacrifice.

With the utmost respect (and I mean that, despite it often being the case that when people say that it's usually followed by an insult!), I understand that you are making a point here on the minimal influence the Irish may have on any future EU decisions... BUT... I think it's telling that the examples like this that arise are often ones where we actually want the outcome agreed, or it's a borderline case where it doesn't make much difference to us (the other thread that comes to mind was the one about the resale of art works requiring a percentage to go to the artist.

Where are EU decisions going against the core of our identity? As far as I can see there are none.

Ix.

Torakx

ixtlan wrote: »

So, you are correct that it would be difficult for you to effect a change in this policy, but would you accept that the reason it will be difficult is that this is the right decision to make and most politicians from whatever state will see that to be the case? Not because the influence of the Irish is small.


Ix

being right one time does not mean they are right everytime.this would be in my opinion why they were forced to amend the treaty in the first place.
if it passes then its going to be alot more difficult to change things that we do not fully agree with.

molloyjh

Torakx wrote: »

being right one time does not mean they are right everytime.this would be in my opinion why they were forced to amend the treaty in the first place.
if it passes then its going to be alot more difficult to change things that we do not fully agree with.

How is it going to be more difficult?

Riskymove

Scofflaw wrote: »

You know, the way you've set that question up reflects your own prejudices, and produces exactly the difficulty you've found. You're comparing apples with oranges.

Why would you challenge European legislation only in Ireland? Why are you relying only on Irish MEPs?

You're thinking inside a box here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

because people generally believe that MEPs are only capable of responding to their own people...mind you given their experience here we can hardly blame them

Torakx

i was just agreeing with your point lol its going to be harder to effect change once it passes.
for a start i am not happy with any majority voting.even though that coves only some issues its a big one for me.
also i feel the irish people will lose touch at a european level to effect our country locally. the light bulb post is an example i think.
i agree with the idea of banning the bulbs to save energy.but the mans point is well taken regardless of that.

Captain Furball

I'm curious as to what would the consequences be for not agreeing to the European Unions light bulb ban?

Riskymove

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not faking outrage. I think a lot of people would agree on how gloomy most CFL bulbs are.

Dont worry, the new legislation allows for Halogen bulbs to remain on the market. They operate and appear like incandescents

problem solved

Riskymove

Captain Furball wrote: »

I'm curious as to what would the consequences of not agreeing to the European Unions light bulb ban?

of who not agreeing to it?

ireland already has agreed to it (all 27 MS have)

Torakx

guys i was thinking we were not talking about light bulbs but legislation and the political process.
am i wrong? lol

sink

Scofflaw hit the nail on the head. This is not an Irish specific issue, any concerns an individual Irish person has over this legislation could be shared by any European citizen across the whole continent. If your looking too block EU legislation you have to look outside of Ireland to your fellow citizens from other member states who share your concerns. A concerted effort of lobbying MEP's across Europe is the only way to go about it, but good luck finding enough support against this particular piece of legislation, I think you are in a minority both here in Ireland and in the EU as whole.

Scofflaw

Riskymove wrote: »

because people generally believe that MEPs are only capable of responding to their own people...mind you given their experience here we can hardly blame them

Well, not even that, but why not campaign with other groups across Europe? There's plenty in the UK at a minimum who are opposed. Have them put pressure on their MEPs.

That's what I meant about thinking inside the box. It's like only contacting your local TD.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Torakx

so if a country like italy now could not even vote on their treaty
how do we expect states like that to stop any issues?
are we to rely on a part democratic/part fascist union after its voted in?
i know were only talking lightbulbs or so you would think but for me its about how the system would work and not the actual lightbulbs.

ixtlan

Torakx wrote: »

if it passes then its going to be alot more difficult to change things that we do not fully agree with.

Certainly this is true, but it is not the whole picture.

It will also mean that it is easier for us to get all of Europe to agree to things that we really want. The light-bulbs issue is actually one of those because we wanted it.

The question always remains the same as regarded pooled sovereignty. Are there more issues/policies/attitudes that we suceed in implementing across Europe to our benefit, than there are issues/policies/attitudes which are forced on us against our wishes.

I say again that it is telling that those arguing this valid point can only bring up artist payments on re-sale of paintings (a very marginal issue) and banning of incandescent bulbs (an issue Ireland pushed).

I'm sure there are more controversial issues to be found, but even there I'm sure we will find that the majority are decisions where we may accept that they were the right decisions even if for various reasons we objected.

Ix.

Captain Furball

Riskymove;
Businesses not agreeing to it.

Sink;
They're not our fellow citizens.

Riskymove

Captain Furball wrote: »

Riskymove;
Businesses not agreeing to it.

I'd imagine a fine if succesfully prosecuted

no doubt the irish legislation will include details of enforcement

Riskymove

Torakx wrote: »

so if a country like italy now could not even vote on their treaty
how do we expect states like that to stop any issues?
are we to rely on a part democratic/part fascist union after its voted in?
i know were only talking lightbulbs or so you would think but for me its about how the system would work and not the actual lightbulbs.

the problem here is you are talking about an issue already agreed with the governments of all 27 MS after a period of a couple of years work. the first opportunity to lobby would have been when the EU was deliberating on this

ixtlan

Torakx wrote: »

so if a country like italy now could not even vote on their treaty
how do we expect states like that to stop any issues?

They do vote in their government. If something serious enough arises then it will become a general election issue, and indeed one would expect the Italian government to raise it with the EU before they came to an election. You seem to think that governments have no connection with their people.

Torakx wrote: »

are we to rely on a part democratic/part fascist union after its voted in?

Would you like to explain how the EU is fascist? You should throw around such words so lightly.

Torakx wrote: »

i know were only talking lightbulbs or so you would think but for me its about how the system would work and not the actual lightbulbs.

The lightbulbs issue shows how it works in our favour. We assisted in pushing this ban across Europe. I say again for the third time, the fact that this was the issue chosen to represent this discussion shows how there are very very few issues where the EU "forces" votes through.

Ix

sink

Captain Furball wrote: »

Sink;
They're not our fellow citizens.

Well in the context of the structure and functionality of the EU legally they are our fellow citizens. You may object to this but you cannot deny it's existence.

Torakx

maybe i was wrong with the fascist part if so i apologise to everyone here.
i said that because i had read that italy did not get a chancce to vote on the lisbon treaty it was just passed in their country.

my point is not about the lightbulbs,i couldnt care less to be honest on that topic.
i presumed the original poster was asking how would we go about changing that law?
and what would our realistic chances be of changing a similar law not necesarily lightbulbs. before and after the treaty.
i guess i am asking on behalf on anyone interested and still undecided on there vote as i decided 5 months ago.

Scofflaw

Torakx wrote: »

maybe i was wrong with the fascist part if so i apologise to everyone here.
i said that because i had read that italy did not get a chancce to vote on the lisbon treaty it was just passed in their country.

my point is not about the lightbulbs,i couldnt care less to be honest on that topic.
i presumed the original poster was asking how would we go about changing that law?
and what would our realistic chances be of changing a similar law not necesarily lightbulbs. before and after the treaty.
i guess i am asking on behalf on anyone interested and still undecided on there vote as i decided 5 months ago.

Your chances after the Treaty are higher, since co-decision comes in in 43 more areas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Freeborn John

Torakx wrote: »

i presumed the original poster was asking how would we go about changing that law? and what would our realistic chances be of changing a similar law not necesarily lightbulbs. before and after the treaty.

No EU law can be changed without a legislative proposal from the EU Commission, which is a body whose members are sworn to be independent of national government and for which the only requirement of office is that they are 'committed Europeans'. The EU Commission does not not remove EU legislation but consistently looks for new areas in which it can create new EU law because that is the means by which the superstate is being built. No voter anywhere in Europe has any reasonable chance of influencing the legislative proposals from the EU Commsion.

Freeborn John

Scofflaw wrote: »

Your chances after the Treaty are higher, since co-decision comes in in 43 more areas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

The EU Parliament cannot amend an existing EU law. Monnet did not allow for that because it would provide a means by which voters would be able to reverse previous integration. Instead he gave the EU Commission the monopoly on legislative initiative instead such that nothing previously 'aquired' by the aquis (EU body of law) can be yielded without the agreement of a bodt sworn to 'ever closer union'.

ei.sdraob

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

People have been claiming that the Lisbon treaty allows citizens to challenge EU rules as they could not do before. The purpose of this thread was to find out exactly how we could test that on this policy.

ok assuming Lisbon is passed then you can (beside the usual methods of having politicians look into and raise matters)

* get a million signatures and have the matter looked at
* if everyone in Ireland is unhappy about this (highly unlikely) leave the EU under the exit process granted by Lisbon

Freeborn John

ei.sdraob wrote: »

ok assuming Lisbon is passed then you can (beside the usual methods of having politicians look into and raise matters)

* get a million signatures and have the matter looked at
* if everyone in Ireland is unhappy about this (highly unlikely) leave the EU under the exit process granted by Lisbon

The EU Commission is free under Lisbon to ignore any so-called 'citizen initiative' it wants to. This is one of the many democratic fig-leaves in Lisbon.

Riskymove

Freeborn John wrote: »

The EU Commission is free under Lisbon to ignore any so-called 'citizen initiative' it wants to. This is one of the many democratic fig-leaves in Lisbon.

no it has to examine the matter...it doesn't have to act


which makes sense yes? I mean if a million people wanted child porn made legal?

ei.sdraob

Freeborn John wrote: »

The EU Commission is free under Lisbon to ignore any so-called 'citizen initiative' it wants to. This is one of the many democratic fig-leaves in Lisbon.

But your elected MEPs get more say if lisbon passes, and theres nothing stopping you hassling them or getting people in other EU countries to hassle their MEPs about lightbulbs, so that cover the EU Parliament

for that matter one can start a "Let There Be Lightbulb" campaign in all the countries and annoy/harras the ministers about the issue, since its the ministers who have the final say how EU runs on the EU Council

as for the EU Commision we get to keep "our" commisioner with Lisbon, we loose him without Lisbon

its all quite very democratic, and will be more so under Lisbon, but like the current system one has to get of their ass and vote and get involved in politics, democracy at its finest

/

marco_polo

Freeborn John wrote: »

The EU Parliament cannot amend an existing EU law. Monnet did not allow for that because it would provide a means by which voters would be able to reverse previous integration. Instead he gave the EU Commission the monopoly on legislative initiative instead such that nothing previously 'aquired' by the aquis (EU body of law) can be yielded without the agreement of a bodt sworn to 'ever closer union'.

The only mechanism by which competencies can be removed from the union is by exactly the same means that they can be conferred upon it. By unamimous agreement of all member states.

ixtlan

Torakx wrote: »

my point is not about the lightbulbs,i couldnt care less to be honest on that topic.
i presumed the original poster was asking how would we go about changing that law?
and what would our realistic chances be of changing a similar law not necesarily lightbulbs.

I do understand that the no debaters here are only using the lightbulbs as a convenient recent law which will affect the public directly, but I do find it curious that they are not commenting on my comment, which I will make for the fourth time.

Can you come up with a better example for your argument of a powerless Ireland in the face of an opressive EU, considering that we, Ireland, pushed for this law, and considering that it is a law that while it will inconvenience us will surely be accepted as a good thing.

As Scofflaw says, if you are willing to look at the glass half-full scenario, it may be easier for you to affect change in the future.

Also, the no debaters are arguing from a very negative position. Making progress and improving people's lives for the better does not usually come from the ability to block new laws and policies, but rather from the ability to convince others of the right way to proceed. And why bother trying to convince others when we happily make all our decisions nationally? Because almost all those decisions are inextrixably linked with the rest of the EU and indeed the world. Even in this case. Would you like Ireland to withdraw from all climate control treaties? Let everyone else worry about it?

Ix.

Captain Furball

sink wrote: »

Well in the context of the structure and functionality of the EU legally they are our fellow citizens. You may object to this but you cannot deny it's existence.

I'm an Irish citizen not a citizen of every other country.But this thread is about something else, so lets leave it at that.

Scofflaw

Freeborn John wrote: »

The EU Parliament cannot amend an existing EU law. Monnet did not allow for that because it would provide a means by which voters would be able to reverse previous integration. Instead he gave the EU Commission the monopoly on legislative initiative instead such that nothing previously 'aquired' by the aquis (EU body of law) can be yielded without the agreement of a bodt sworn to 'ever closer union'.

Either the Council or the Parliament can request the Commission issue a proposal to repeal existing legislation, or to update it, and regularly do so.

regards,
Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

You know, the way you've set that question up reflects your own prejudices, and produces exactly the difficulty you've found. You're comparing apples with oranges.

Why would you challenge European legislation only in Ireland? Why are you relying only on Irish MEPs?

You're thinking inside a box here.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Because it would be far easier to organize an Irish campaign than a massive international one, maybe?

sink

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because it would be far easier to organize an Irish campaign than a massive international one, maybe?

It would be easier to organise a Donegal campaign than an all Ireland one, but what would be the point if the light bulbs will be illegal in the 25 other counties. Do you get my point?

If incandescent light bulbs are illegal in the 26 other states, they will be virtually unavailable here by default. No one is going to bother manufacturing light bulbs specifically for Ireland, and AFAIK North American and Asia bulbs are incompatible with the European electricity grid due to different voltages.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Because it would be far easier to organize an Irish campaign than a massive international one, maybe?

That assumes that nobody else in the EU wants the legislation changed, though. Again, you're just thinking "Ireland". How is that different from just thinking "Laois" when it comes to challenging national legislation?

Unless we're talking about a one-man campaign here, it seems reasonable that your ability to contact groups of similar interest over the Internet would allow you to take part in a European campaign just as easily as a national one. And if you all agreed to write to each others MEPs and national legislators, think how much more impact you could have.

Many hands make light work...as they say.

cordially,
Scofflaw

(I admit it - the whole post was a setup for the last line.)

hatrickpatrick

sink wrote: »

It would be easier to organise a Donegal campaign than an all Ireland one, but what would be the point if the light bulbs will be illegal in the 25 other counties. Do you get my point?

If incandescent light bulbs are illegal in the 26 other states, they will be virtually unavailable here by default. No one is going to bother manufacturing light bulbs specifically for Ireland, and AFAIK North American and Asia bulbs are incompatible with the European electricity grid due to different voltages.

Hence why I don't think the EU should be allowed to make europe wide rules like this. It should be up to the electorate of each country to decide. That way the people in each country would have far more influence on the laws, and therefore they would be more democratic.

NOW do you understand my argument that a smaller population = a more democratic government, therefore a national parliament is more democratic than an international body?

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Hence why I don't think the EU should be allowed to make europe wide rules like this. It should be up to the electorate of each country to decide. That way the people in each country would have far more influence on the laws, and therefore they would be more democratic.

NOW do you understand my argument that a smaller population = a more democratic government, therefore a national parliament is more democratic than an international body?

I understand that argument, but it doesn't follow from what you've said.

cordially,
Scofflaw

oscarBravo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

NOW do you understand my argument that a smaller population = a more democratic government, therefore a national parliament is more democratic than an international body?

A village council in turn is more democratic. Applying reductio ad absurdum, the most perfect expression of democracy is everybody making their own rules to suit themselves, without having to compromise with anybody else.

While this is more democratic, it's patently unworkable. Society can only function when people agree to be bound by a common set of rules.

So we have two different criteria which need to be balanced: the level of democracy, versus the level of efficiency. It's not hard to conclude that, in varying circumstances, a varying mix of democracy versus efficiency is appropriate.

Measuring something solely by its "democraticness" is, at best, pointless.

netron

i am against the banning of these bulbs.


i would like to know some facts regarding this decision:

Who implemented this ban - as in WHO decided on this.

And which MEPS voted on it.

This issue is so symptomatic of the EU in general - nobody has a friggin clue WHERE these laws are coming from, and nobody is accountable.

fulltimeride

Now I for one absolutely loathe the CFL bulbs and I'm quite certain that I'm not alone. Ireland had already banned 100 watt ones but you could still buy 60 and 80 watts. The EU plans to completely phase them out.

As an Irish citizen who is wholeheartedly opposed to this.

Hello, the light bulbs that they are phasing out are inefficent that why there doing it to reduce the impact on climate change.If them banning old light bulbs is the biggest problem on your mind god help you on the lisbon treaty.

netron

fulltimeride wrote: »

Now I for one absolutely loathe the CFL bulbs and I'm quite certain that I'm not alone. Ireland had already banned 100 watt ones but you could still buy 60 and 80 watts. The EU plans to completely phase them out.

As an Irish citizen who is wholeheartedly opposed to this.

Hello, the light bulbs that they are phasing out are inefficent that why there doing it to reduce the impact on climate change.If them banning old light bulbs is the biggest problem on your mind god help you on the lisbon treaty.

in america you would have senators on both sides of the debate and you would know EXACTLY who voted for it.

over here - bugger all.
we havent a clue.

and lightbulbs are "banned".

like some God like finger "banning" them from brussels.

i know the point is minor - tis only lightbulbs and we'll adjust to it, i'm sure we will - but its the decision making process that infuriates me. WHO made the decision and HOW do i overturn that decision?

ei.sdraob

netron wrote: »

in america you would have senators on both sides of the debate and you would know EXACTLY who voted for it.

over here - bugger all.
we havent a clue.

and lightbulbs are "banned".

like some God like finger "banning" them from brussels.

i know the point is minor - tis only lightbulbs and we'll adjust to it, i'm sure we will - but its the decision making process that infuriates me. WHO made the decision and HOW do i overturn that decision?

Several nations including Australia, New Zealand, the US, Canada and the Philippines have also announced plans to phase out traditional bulbs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8230961.stm


wheres your Obama now

Macha

netron wrote: »

i am against the banning of these bulbs.


i would like to know some facts regarding this decision:

Who implemented this ban - as in WHO decided on this.

And which MEPS voted on it.

This issue is so symptomatic of the EU in general - nobody has a friggin clue WHERE these laws are coming from, and nobody is accountable.

Go and read a McKinsey marginal cost curve abatement study, either for Ireland or anywhere else.

I like the way you state you're against the banning of the bulbs and then explicitly profess your ignorance about the issue or the process by which they were agreed on.

sink

FYI - The EU has not banned incandescent bulbs per-se, they have set energy efficiency requirements for all bulbs and traditional incandescent bulbs do not meet the standard, but modern halogen filled incandescent bulbs do.

Modern efficient halogen incandescent bulbs give exactly the same quality of light as traditional incandescents so you won't be force to resort to using compact fluorescents. Anybody with vapid criticisms of these new energy efficiency standards without doing some basic research are only looking for an excuse to get their knickers in a twist.

As always the European Commission has published detailed information on the measures available to all who can be arsed.

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/lumen/doc/incandescent-bulbs-en.pdf

netron

taconnol wrote: »

Go and read a McKinsey marginal cost curve abatement study, either for Ireland or anywhere else.

I like the way you state you're against the banning of the bulbs and then explicitly profess your ignorance about the issue or the process by which they were agreed on.

i like the way you have not given an answer to my question.

says a lot.

netron

sink wrote: »

FYI - The EU has not banned incandescent bulbs per-se, they have set energy efficiency requirements for all bulbs and traditional incandescent bulbs do not meet the standard, but modern halogen filled incandescent bulbs do.

Modern efficient halogen incandescent bulbs give exactly the same quality of light as traditional incandescents so you won't be force to resort to using compact fluorescents. Anybody with vapid criticisms of these new energy efficiency standards without doing some basic research are only looking for an excuse to get their knickers in a twist.

As always the European Commission has published detailed information on the measures available to all who can be arsed.

http://ec.europa.eu/energy/efficiency/ecodesign/lumen/doc/incandescent-bulbs-en.pdf

how do we overturn that decision and vote these people out of office?
simple question.

ei.sdraob

netron wrote: »

how do we overturn that decision and vote these people out of office?
simple question.

EU 101 :rolleyes:

European Commission > these are voted in by EU Council and EU Parliament

European Council > these are heads of states of member countries voted in at general elections

European Parliament > voted in directly by people, we last had the exercise 2 months ago


all of these people are elected by you, me and everyone else in EU

and are are voted out by us

imho, the commission are a useless bunch and would have been reduced under Lisbon 1 but no "the people have had their say" so these useless bureaucrats will remain

the parliament are voted by the people directly, the council are voted in by the people (in case of ireland we vote in a party and the choose head guy like Cowen)

ok? comprende?

/

sink

netron wrote: »

i am against the banning of these bulbs.


i would like to know some facts regarding this decision:

Who implemented this ban - as in WHO decided on this.

And which MEPS voted on it.

This issue is so symptomatic of the EU in general - nobody has a friggin clue WHERE these laws are coming from, and nobody is accountable.

Here you go.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=REPORT&reference=A6-2009-0096&language=EN

Result 46 for 5 against. It also gives a list of the MEP's present but does not say which MEP's voted for and against, but it does give the minutes of the debate so you can read it and find out who supported which side and why.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?type=CRE&reference=20090423&secondRef=ITEM-020&language=EN&ring=A6-2009-0096