TalktoEU / EU Questions

Scofflaw

As people may or may not know, boards.ie now has a "talk to" forum where you can get a direct response from the EU (more or less) and from the European Consumer Centre.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1299

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dav

We've had a sit down with the Talk to EU people and we've decided on a bit of a change for their and this forum.

You may now see that there are optional Thread Prefixes for this forum which are:

• [Talk to EU]
• [Talk to EU] Economy & Jobs
• [Talk to EU] Environment & Energy
• [Talk to EU] Lisbon Treaty

If you use one of these prefixes on your thread, the Talk to EU people will see that it's for them and will join in on the discussion or answer any questions posted. The content of the threads will also appear on their own site (www.talktoeu.ie).

On top of this, we're also going to merge the previous content from their Talk To forum onto this forum as we think it's better to have all the discussion on the EU in one easier to find place in our Politics section. That merge will take place on Monday (08/11/10).

Please feel free to post any questions you have here.

Scofflaw

It seems a little clarification is necessary here. The TalktoEU posters are part of a general boards.ie initiative to get direct access to companies and organisations of interest to posters.

They're here as official representatives rather than in a personal capacity, and the purpose of them being here is to answer factual questions about the EU. They are not, therefore, required to answer speculative questions which start from some supposition you may have about the EU's aims or intentions, and they're definitely not required to indulge any conspiracy theory you may have. They can't give a statement on behalf of the EU in response to a political question.

If your question is something like "can the EU freedom of movement be suspended?" they can answer that, because the answer is factual, and to be found in the Treaties and case law of the EU.

If, on the other hand, your question is something like "does the EU have any concern at all for the Irish workers who have lost their jobs/are passed up for jobs because Irish employers can get away with paying below the minimum wage?" or "is Ollie Rehn setting us for IMF intervention" they can't really answer it usefully, because you're asking for a political response on behalf of the EU, and the TalktoEU posters aren't in a position to give such a thing.

If your question is "why is the EU using chemtrails to control the populace?" then not only can your question not really be answered, but the mods will be along to ban or infract you and close the thread, because Conspiracy Theories has its own forum. If you see that as mod suppression of "awkward questions" you can take it up in the Feedback or DR forums.

Finally, the TalktoEU posters have the same rights as other posters - you don't get to abuse them, ask them personal questions, harass them endlessly with silliness etc.

As usual on all forums at all times, the boards.ie rule of "don't be a dick" applies.

moderately,
Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton

Scofflaw wrote: »

a direct response from the EU (more or less)

It's not really clear from their website http://www.talktoeu.ie/

Which part of the EU do we "talk to"? There hundreds of EU agencies with different functions, the Commission, the Parliament, the ECJ and the Council of Ministers. Which of these are answering the questions?

Scofflaw

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's not really clear from their website http://www.talktoeu.ie/

Which part of the EU do we "talk to"? There hundreds of EU agencies with different functions, the Commission, the Parliament, the ECJ and the Council of Ministers. Which of these are answering the questions?

I was going to give a long (and partly speculative, I admit) answer, but you'd probably do better asking them directly - asking them what their sources are seems entirely legitimate to me. It will probably turn out to be liaison with the Citizens' Signpost Service (or whoever the heck has taken over those functions in the EU's constant reshuffle of responsibilities and titles), but that's an educated guess. The website T&C mostly features the Commission, if that helps.

cordially,
Scofflaw

TalkToEU: John

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

It's not really clear from their website http://www.talktoeu.ie/

Which part of the EU do we "talk to"? There hundreds of EU agencies with different functions, the Commission, the Parliament, the ECJ and the Council of Ministers. Which of these are answering the questions?

The question raised by johnnyskeleton was discussed in a new thread which you can view here.

ro09

Scofflaw wrote: »

As people may or may not know, boards.ie now has a "talk to" forum where you can get a direct response from the EU (more or less) and from the European Consumer Centre.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1299

cordially,
Scofflaw

Who are these people who will be responding to us. Where do they come from and what powers do they have to officially answer peoples questions.

Why are boards doing this and who had the idea for it.

Are you involved in it yourself in any way.

thank you.

Scofflaw

ro09 wrote: »

Who are these people who will be responding to us. Where do they come from and what powers do they have to officially answer peoples questions.

See the post above yours.

ro09 wrote: »

Why are boards doing this and who had the idea for it.

Boards are doing it because we like to facilitate political discourse and knowledge.

ro09 wrote: »

Are you involved in it yourself in any way.

thank you.

No - they're official representatives as per the thread. I'm a Boards moderator - which leads me to:

I have to say i find it unfair that anytime a person has genuine concerns over an Eu issue or treaty you immediately answer back rebutting the persons post and even threatening to ban people if they say it to you.

I respond as a poster because I'm interested in EU issues, which I think are very poorly understood and debated in Ireland. That does often mean that I'm responding to concerns that arise from poor understanding.

I respond as a moderator when people do things that require moderation. If you have a claim to make in respect of bias or inappropriate actions on my part, please make it in the appropriate place and be prepared to back it up. Don't just make accusations on my profile - that's pretty poor.

regards,
Scofflaw

ro09

Scofflaw wrote: »

If you have a claim to make in respect of bias or inappropriate actions on my part, please make it in the appropriate place and be prepared to back it up. Don't just make accusations on my profile - that's pretty poor.

regards,
Scofflaw

Oh I have made a complaint Scofflaw to the owner of Boards.ie . will that do the trick for you.

regards
ro

Scofflaw

ro09 wrote: »

Oh I have made a complaint Scofflaw to the owner of Boards.ie . will that do the trick for you.

regards
ro

Whatever makes you happy is fine with me.

regards,
Scofflaw

TalkToEU: John

ro09 wrote: »

Who are these people who will be responding to us. Where do they come from and what powers do they have to officially answer peoples questions.

Why are boards doing this and who had the idea for it.

Are you involved in it yourself in any way.

thank you.

Hi ro09,

This was discussed in this thread here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056088591

In terms of answering question, depending on the nature of the question we are in contact with various representatives and departments of the European Commission both in Dublin and Brussels. EG: If it's a specific question on Agriculture for example, we'll likely be in contact with a representative from the DG Agriculture and Rural Development.

Going Forward

Hi, is there an agreed or expected timescale for the EC representative to answer any "factual questions" posted?

TalkToEU: John

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi, is there an agreed or expected timescale for the EC representative to answer any "factual questions" posted?

Hi Goingforward.

This really depends on the nature of the question. If the information is at hand or easily obtained, we've a quick turn around. However, if something requires extra research, details from particular departments within the Commission offices in Dublin or Brussels, some investigation, the issuing of a statement, or the clarification of an issue, the whole process can take a little longer.
Apologies for any delays.

Going Forward

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

Hi Goingforward.

This really depends on the nature of the question. If the information is at hand or easily obtained, we've a quick turn around. However, if something requires extra research, details from particular departments within the Commission offices in Dublin or Brussels, some investigation, the issuing of a statement, or the clarification of an issue, the whole process can take a little longer.
Apologies for any delays.

Thanks, but that doesnt answer the timeframe questions; does the TalkToEu service here aspire to meeting any specific delivery targets relating to answering questions?

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

As people may or may not know, boards.ie now has a "talk to" forum where you can get a direct response from the EU (more or less) and from the European Consumer Centre.

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/forumdisplay.php?f=1299

cordially,
Scofflaw

Hi Scofflaw-

I have submitted 2 questions, the 1st about a Directive and another question regarding the level of service offered by "TalktoEU", specifically as to whether any timeframes for answering questions have been agreed or can be expected by those making use of the service offered.

And what I mean by this is, will questions be answered within say, 7 days, 1 month, 4 months etc.?

I got an answer from TalktoEU along the lines of "if its an easy question it'll be answered quickly; if its a tough one it'll take longer a bit longer".

I myself am familiar with that method, I began to use it when I was around 6 years old during maths lessons; and still do to this day!

As Moderator, how long do you think is an acceptable time to have a query raised with TalktoEU explained in a clear, unambiguous way?

Its not like I've asked whats the 3rd secret of Fatima.:)

Whats the position on this/are my expectations too high?

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi Scofflaw-

I have submitted 2 questions, the 1st about a Directive and another question regarding the level of service offered by "TalktoEU", specifically as to whether any timeframes for answering questions have been agreed or can be expected by those making use of the service offered.

And what I mean by this is, will questions be answered within say, 7 days, 1 month, 4 months etc.?

I got an answer from TalktoEU along the lines of "if its an easy question it'll be answered quickly; if its a tough one it'll take longer a bit longer".

I myself am familiar with that method, I began to use it when I was around 6 years old during maths lessons; and still do to this day!

As Moderator, how long do you think is an acceptable time to have a query raised with TalktoEU explained in a clear, unambiguous way?

Its not like I've asked whats the 3rd secret of Fatima.:)

Whats the position on this/are my expectations too high?

Interesting question. As far as I'm aware, boards makes no specific demands on any official representatives. From talktoeu's answer, it seems that there is no "service level agreement" as such - complicated questions take longer to answer, easy questions are answered quickly.

That seems fair enough to me as a general principle. I guess I'd expect to see a response relatively quickly - that is, within a few days - but the response may say only "we'll investigate and come back to you".

Obviously if there was some kind of general pattern of just not answering, or answering incredibly slowly, boards might want to rethink the relationship, but otherwise I'd say it's pretty much up to them - getting an answer out of a bureaucracy (which is what they're doing on your behalf) isn't always swift, and the fault often doesn't lie with the person asking the questions...

cordially,
Scofflaw

TalkToEU: John

Hi again goingforward,

Thanks for bringing this up. We don't have a specific agreement for answering questions within a specific time frame as some questions can take time to answer. We do our best to answer questions as soon as possible though. We understand though that a bit more communication on our behalf would be better.

In relation to your outstanding question, as it requires a further information from somebody with specific knowledge in this area and with the responsibility to issue a statement if needs be, we are awaiting further correspondence.

We've been in contact with a spokepersonfrom the Transport Directorate General in the European Commission and have forwarded them your original question. We'll keep you up to date on the process and apologies for the delay.

Going Forward

TalkToEU: John wrote: »

Hi again goingforward,

Thanks for bringing this up. We don't have a specific agreement for answering questions within a specific time frame as some questions can take time to answer. We do our best to answer questions as soon as possible though. We understand though that a bit more communication on our behalf would be better.

In relation to your outstanding question, as it requires a further information from somebody with specific knowledge in this area and with the responsibility to issue a statement if needs be, we are awaiting further correspondence.

We've been in contact with a spokepersonfrom the Transport Directorate General in the European Commission and have forwarded them your original question. We'll keep you up to date on the process and apologies for the delay.

OK thats seems fair enough, Thanks.

Going Forward

Ok, so I ask a question about one thing and I get an answer about something else.

Thanks.

ray011

Scofflaw wrote: »

It seems a little clarification is necessary here. The TalktoEU posters are part of a general boards.ie initiative to get direct access to companies and organisations of interest to posters.

They're here as official representatives rather than in a personal capacity, and the purpose of them being here is to answer factual questions about the EU.
moderately,
Scofflaw

why did boards.ie one of the largest irish forums feel they had to get involved with the TalktoEU website. A representative body of the EU.?

ok . If for arguments sake there was a counter website with legal professionals that critcised various EU Policies would Boards.ie get involved with them?

who's idea was it for boards and this EU representative body to get involved with each other.?

Kind regards
ray.

Going Forward

Valid point;

The moderator of this EU talking shop forum is not even moderating this forum.
This is a worthless exercise.

Scofflaw

ray011 wrote: »

why did boards.ie one of the largest irish forums feel they had to get involved with the TalktoEU website. A representative body of the EU.?

The answer is in the post you quoted - but talktoeu definitely aren't a representative body of the EU. AFAIK, there would be different rules for a representative body.

ray011 wrote: »

ok . If for arguments sake there was a counter website with legal professionals that critcised various EU Policies would Boards.ie get involved with them?

I don't see why not.

ray011 wrote: »

who's idea was it for boards and this EU representative body to get involved with each other.?

Kind regards
ray.

I presume that's a question for talktoeu.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

Valid point;

The moderator of this EU talking shop forum is not even moderating this forum.
This is a worthless exercise.

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean - all the Politics forums are moderated.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean - all the Politics forums are moderated.

moderately,
Scofflaw

OK, to be more precise- I have responded to what I see as TALKTOEU John's mickey mouse responses and "he/she/they" have not bothered to answer.

Is this a one way street? Am I not entitled to have further questions on the subject answered by TALKTOEU? No debate allowed with TALKTOEU?

If you read the posts and are happy that there is no need for "he/she/they/an unelected EU official" to make any further resonse please make this clear.

What is the point of this forum if the moderator sits on the fence whilst the EU/Representative for the European Commission in Ireland refuses to acknowledge or reply to further questions?

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

OK, to be more precise- I have responded to what I see as TALKTOEU John's mickey mouse responses and "he/she/they" have not bothered to answer.

Is this a one way street? Am I not entitled to have further questions on the subject answered by TALKTOEU? No debate allowed with TALKTOEU?

If you read the posts and are happy that there is no need for "he/she/they/an unelected EU official" to make any further resonse please make this clear.

What is the point of this forum if the moderator sits on the fence whilst the EU/Representative for the European Commission in Ireland refuses to acknowledge or reply to further questions?

I cannot in any sense force the talktoeu representative to reply any more than I can force any other poster to do so, and it's not part of moderating the Politics forum to do so. If you want to complain that talktoeu are unresponsive, you should probably use Feedback in the normal way - but bear in mind that this is not solely the talktoeu forum. This is the EU forum in Politics, to which the talktoeu representatives have been given access, having been originally in the Biz "Talk to" section.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

I appreciate that you cant force answers etc., but are you not even interested or concerned by the lack of engagement? No bother either way!:rolleyes:

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

I appreciate that you cant force answers etc., but are you not even interested or concerned by the lack of engagement? No bother either way!:rolleyes:

If they feel they've answered the question, they feel they've answered the question. If you feel you didn't get your money's worth, you feel you didn't get your money's worth. It appears to be an issue between posters to me.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

A point perhaps worth adding here is that it is probably unrealistic to expect fast answers from talktoeu, because talktoeu cannot require fast answers from the EU.

Essentially, talktoeu ask a question of the EU on your behalf. They are then at the mercy of how long it takes that question to wend its way to someone appropriate in the EU, and for that person to respond. The EU is no faster at doing this than any other public service, which means that a turn-around time of six weeks is your best bet. If you then request clarification, that can take another six weeks.

The value talktoeu provides is that if you ask the question yourself it's up to you to get that question into the EU, and keep on asking until it gets answered - and that will also take you the minimum six weeks.

Another port of call if you have a question about the EU is the EuropeDirect Service. There are EuropeDirect centres in the main libraries in Ballinasloe, Carraroe, Letterkenny, Blanchardstown, Dundalk, Killarney, Waterford and Thurles. You can also call them directly or email them - if your question is a common one, you should get an answer immediately. If your question is more specialised, my experience is again that you'll be waiting six weeks minimum.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

A little late in posting the "conditions" relating to the TalkToU service, if I may say so.

These should have been published at the outset to prevent one from having high hopes that it would be an efficient service for EU Citizens.

Regardless of any regional Europe Direct services operating in locations throughout the country, (which I regard as similar to TDs' clinics for people who cannot access information by themselves,) I have opted to ask a question in a public forum.

It has not been answered.

3 months and counting says a lot for the service, leaving aside the deliberate attempt to offer what I described as a deliberately misleading and bland, pointless response citing a different Directive, which was not relevant to the question submitted.

It would be no harm to re-read the question and note the EU's refusal (or inability) to address the issue.

Why?

Because it indeed does look like, as another poster observed, that someone somewhere "screwed up" and wont have to face the music as long as the EC/EU stays mute on the subject.

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

A little late in posting the "conditions" relating to the TalkToU service, if I may say so.

These should have been published at the outset to prevent one from having high hopes that it would be an efficient service for EU Citizens.

Regardless of any regional Europe Direct services operating in locations throughout the country, (which I regard as similar to TDs' clinics for people who cannot access information by themselves,) I have opted to ask a question in a public forum.

It has not been answered.

3 months and counting says a lot for the service, leaving aside the deliberate attempt to offer what I described as a deliberately misleading and bland, pointless response citing a different Directive, which was not relevant to the question submitted.

It would be no harm to re-read the question and note the EU's refusal (or inability) to address the issue.

Why?

Because it indeed does look like, as another poster observed, that someone somewhere "screwed up" and wont have to face the music as long as the EC/EU stays mute on the subject.

Eh, that's a bit of a jump. Still, I am now concerned by the lack of any ongoing communication here and I'll see what I can do to raise that concern.

Don't necessarily expect a swift resolution, though...it can take up to three months to get something agreed even amongst the mods.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

Message understood.

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

Eh, that's a bit of a jump. Still, I am now concerned by the lack of any ongoing communication here and I'll see what I can do to raise that concern.

Don't necessarily expect a swift resolution, though...it can take up to three months to get something agreed even amongst the mods.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Greetings Scofflaw,

TalkToEu has again posted information relating to a seperate Directive, which as I explained earlier, relates to a different category of motor vehicles.

Think apples and oranges for example.

It is beginning to appear as if the European Commission (or it's representative in the form of TalkToEu John) is simply not interested in answering the questions submitted.

Any thoughts going forward?

Going Forward

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

Hi TalkToEu.

My question was specifically about the implementation of Directive 2002/85EC in Ireland.

This is the second time you have posted a reply citing Directive 92/6/EEC.

Is it possible to address the questions I posed regarding Directive 2002/85EC?

Apologies - I don't follow this thread full time, but it seems to me that "apples and oranges" is hardly the case, given that the Directive you're interested in is an amending one, which amends the Directive the answer they gave refers to:

Directive 2002/85/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 2002

amending Council Directive 92/6/EEC on the installation and use of speed limitation devices for certain categories of motor vehicles in the Community

I'm not sure how one can deal with an amending piece of legislation without referring to the piece of legislation it amends? Or is there a reason why these are clearly and entirely separate in your view?

This is 92/6/EEC:

Article 1

For the purpose of this Directive, 'motor vehicle' means any power-driven vehicle falling within one of the categories listed below, intended for use on the road and having at least four wheels and a maximum design speed exceeding 25 km/h:

- category M3 vehicles having a maximum weight exceeding 10 metric tonnes,

- category N3 vehicles,

categories M3 and N3 being understood to be those defined in Annex I to Directive 70/156/EEC (4).

Article 2

Member States shall take the necessary steps to ensure that motor vehicles of the category M3 referred to in Article 1 shall be used on the road only if speed limitation devices are installed for which the maximum speed is set at 100 km/h.

Article 3

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that motor vehicles of category N3 shall be used on the road only if equipped with a device set in such a way that their speed cannot exceed 90 km/h; bearing in mind the technical tolerance which is allowed, at the present state of technology, between the regulating value and the actual speed of traffic, the maximum speed on this device shall be set at 86 km/h.

2. Member States shall be authorized to set the maximum speed of the device at less than 85 km/h in vehicles used exclusively for the carriage of dangerous goods and registered in their territory.

Article 4

1. Articles 2 and 3 shall be applicable to vehicles registered as from 1 January 1994.

2. Articles 2 and 3 shall also be applicable, at the latest from 1 January 1995, to vehicles registered between 1 January 1988 and 1 January 1994.

However, where these vehicles are used exclusively for national transport operations, Articles 2 and 3 may be applied at the latest from 1 January 1996.

Article 5

1. Until Community provisions on these matters are applied, the speed limitation devices referred to in Articles 2 and 3 must satisfy the technical requirements laid down by the competent national authorities.

2. Speed limitation devices shall be installed by workshops or bodies approved by the Member States.

Article 6

The requirements of Articles 2 and 3 do not apply to motor vehicles used by armed forces, civil defence, fire and other emergency services and forces responsible for maintaining public order.

The same shall apply for motor vehicles which:

- by their construction, cannot drive faster than the limits provided for in Articles 2 and 3,

- are used for scientific tests on roads,

- are used only for public services in urban areas.

Article 7

1. Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive before 1 October 1993. They shall immediately inform the Commission thereof.

When these provisions are adopted by Member States, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference at the time of their official publication. The procedure for making such reference shall be adopted by Member States.

2. Member States shall communicate to the Commission the text of the provisions of national law which they adopt in the field covered by this Directive.

Article 8

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

This is 2002/85/EC:

Article 1

Directive 92/6/EEC is hereby amended as follows:

1. Articles 1 to 5 shall be replaced by the following:

"Article 1

For the purposes of this Directive, 'motor vehicle' means any power-driven vehicle falling within category M2, M3, N2 or N3, intended for use on the road and having at least four wheels and a maximum design speed exceeding 25 km/h.

Categories M2, M3, N2 and N3 shall be understood to be those defined in Annex II to Directive 70/156/EEC(6).

Article 2

Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that motor vehicles of categories M2 and M3 referred to in Article 1 may be used on the road only if equipped with a speed limitation device set in such a way that their speed cannot exceed 100 kilometres per hour.

Category M3 vehicles registered before 1 January 2005 with a maximum mass exceeding 10 tonnes may continue to be equipped with devices on which the maximum speed is set at 100 kilometres per hour.

Article 3

1. Member States shall take the necessary measures to ensure that motor vehicles of categories N2 and N3 may be used on the road only if equipped with a speed limitation device set in such a way that their speed cannot exceed 90 kilometres per hour.

2. Member States shall be authorised to require that the speed limitation device in vehicles registered in their territory and used exclusively for the transport of dangerous goods is set in such a way that those vehicles cannot exceed a maximum speed of less than 90 kilometres per hour.

Article 4

1. For motor vehicles of category M3 having a maximum mass of more than 10 tonnes and motor vehicles of category N3, Articles 2 and 3 shall be applied:

(a) to vehicles registered as from 1 January 1994, from 1 January 1994;

(b) to vehicles registered between 1 January 1988 and 1 January 1994:

(i) from 1 January 1995, in the case of vehicles used for both national and international transport;

(ii) from 1 January 1996, in the case of vehicles used exclusively for national transport.

2. For motor vehicles of category M2, vehicles of category M3 having a maximum mass of more than 5 tonnes but not exceeding 10 tonnes and vehicles of category N2, Articles 2 and 3 shall apply at the latest:

(a) to vehicles registered as from 1 January 2005;

(b) to vehicles complying with the limit values set out in Directive 88/77/EEC(7) registered between 1 October 2001 and 1 January 2005:

(i) from 1 January 2006 in the case of vehicles used for both national and international transport operations;

(ii) from 1 January 2007 in the case of vehicles used solely for national transport operations.

3. For a period of no more than three years from 1 January 2005, any Member State may exempt from the provisions of Articles 2 and 3 category M2 vehicles and category N2 vehicles with a maximum mass of more than 3,5 tonnes but not exceeding 7,5 tonnes, registered in the national register and not travelling on the territory of another Member State.

Article 5

1. The speed limitation devices referred to in Articles 2 and 3 must satisfy the technical requirements laid down in the Annex to Directive 92/24/EEC(8). However, all vehicles covered by this Directive and registered before 1 January 2005 may continue to be equipped with speed limitation devices which satisfy the technical requirements laid down by the competent national authorities.

2. Speed limitation devices shall be installed by workshops or bodies approved by the Member States."

2. The following Article shall be inserted:

"Article 6a

As part of the road safety action programme for the period 2002 to 2010, the Commission shall assess the road safety and road traffic implications of adjusting the speed limitation devices used by category M2 vehicles and by category N2 vehicles with a maximum mass of 7,5 tonnes or less to the speeds laid down by this Directive.

If necessary, the Commission shall submit appropriate proposals."

Article 2

Member States shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply with this Directive by 1 January 2005 at the latest. They shall forthwith inform the Commission thereof.

When Member States adopt these measures, they shall contain a reference to this Directive or shall be accompanied by such reference on the occasion of their official publication. The methods of making such reference shall be laid down by Member States.

Article 3

This Directive shall enter into force on the day of its publication in the Official Journal of the European Communities.

Article 4

This Directive is addressed to the Member States.

This is the SI giving force to them, which, I can't help but note, covers the two Directives you refer to as being like "apples and oranges":

I, Martin Cullen, Minister for Transport, in exercise of the powers conferred on me by section 3 of the European Communities Act 1972 (No. 27 of 1972) and for the purpose of giving effect to Council Directive 92/6/EEC of 10 February 19921 , Council Directive 92/24/EEC of 31 March 19922 , Directive 2002/85/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 5 November 20023 and Directive 2004/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 20044 , hereby make the following regulations:

So I'm not sure why you regard these two Directives as in some way fundamentally distinct, given that one amends the other, and both are currently given force by the same Irish SI?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

Hi Scofflaw;

Thanks for going to the trouble of putting the two Directives up on the board, as it makes it easier for me to explain the point.

First though, I'm going to ask you a question!
Why do trucks have speed limiters fitted, whilst private cars dont?

I'll give you the (one and only) answer shortly.

Now, back to the issue.
Directive 2002/85EC amended 92/6EC.

Directive 2002/85EC added the requirement to have speed limiters fitted to certain

M2 vehicles

Directive 92/6EC, you will notice, contains no mention of M2 vehicles.

As you rightly point out, SI 831 of 2005 gave effect to Directive 2002/85.

Directive 2002/85 contains the following guide which lists which type of vehicle is affected by the Directive (and this is where it gets interesting):

"2. For motor vehicles of category M2, vehicles of category M3 having a maximum mass of more than 5

tonnes but not exceeding 10 tonnes and vehicles of category N2, Articles 2 and 3 shall apply at the latest:

(a) to vehicles registered as from 1 January 2005;

(b) to vehicles complying with the limit values set out in Directive 88/77/EEC(7) registered between 1 October

2001 and 1 January 2005:

(i) from 1 January 2006 in the case of vehicles used for both national and international transport operations;

(ii) from 1 January 2007 in the case of vehicles used solely for national transport operations.

3. For a period of no more than three years from 1 January 2005, any Member State may exempt from the

provisions of Articles 2 and 3 category M2 vehicles and category N2 vehicles with a maximum mass of more

than 3,5 tonnes but not exceeding 7,5 tonnes, registered in the national register and not travelling on the territory

of another Member State.

So, Directive 2002/85EC states that it applies to M2 vehicles:

" (a) to vehicles registered as from 1 January 2005;

(b) to vehicles complying with the limit values set out in Directive 88/77/EEC(7) registered between 1 October

2001 and 1 January 2005"

The legislation, when the Department of Transport was responsible for it's implementation, was implemented correctly from 2005 till 2008.

But in 2008, the RSA ordered vehicle testers to "fail" ALL M2 vehicles presented for testing unless a speed limiter was fitted.

I have posted the Circular in my question to TalkToEU.

This practise occurred between 2008 and 2010, when it ended abruptly.

The Parliamentary Question which was submitted in 2010 by three Irish MEPS also specifically questioned the implementation of Directive 2002/85EC in Ireland.

The European Commission, in response confirmed that Directive 2002/85EC does not apply to M2 vehicles which do not comply with Directive 88/77EEC, clearly contradicting the RSA's previous order.

The 2010 RSA Circular which I have also posted, beginning with the words "Effective Immediately", ended the RSA's incorrect practise and went on to claim that it (the RSA) had been acting on advice received from the European Commission.

It also claimed that it had asked the European Commission for further advice.

The problem however, is that the RSA's actions were incorrect, and it has apportioned the blame on the European Commission.

Someone in the RSA "screwed up" (the incorrect Circular didnt write itself) and is looking for the European Commission to carry the can.

Now to answer the question I posed at the top:

It is simple:
Private cars are not listed in Directive 2002/85.

Neither are M2 vehicles registered between 2001 and 2005 which comply with Directive 70/220EEC (Light Duty

Diesel Engined Vehicles).

M2 vehicles registered between 2001 and 2005 complying to Directive 88/77EEC (Heavy Duty Diesel Engined

Vehicles) are listed by Directive 2002/85 which amended Directive 92/6.

This aspect is explained in simple terms in the links I posted to the VOSA website in Britain and the DVLNI in Northern Ireland.

To finish, I feel I must now be prepared for TalkToEu to now post that Member States may impose stricter requirements based on Directive 2002/85.

Member States may well do, but through legislation, not by letters sent by individuals in State
Agencies; please note the final paragraph:
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/kfojcwqlqlmh/rss2/

Does that explain it ok for you?

Going Forward

Scofflaw

Does that explain it ok for you?

Going Forward

It certainly helps...but I think it's not necessary for me to fully grasp the details of the different types of vehicle, because what I'm trying to understand here is what you're trying to get TalktoEU to clarify - something on which I've been a little hazy, and, judging from your lack of satisfaction with their responses, something on which they may have also suffered some confusion.

For me, then, this is the important bit:

The Parliamentary Question which was submitted in 2010 by three Irish MEPS also specifically questioned the implementation of Directive 2002/85EC in Ireland.

The European Commission, in response confirmed that Directive 2002/85EC does not apply to M2 vehicles which do not comply with Directive 88/77EEC, clearly contradicting the RSA's previous order.

The 2010 RSA Circular which I have also posted, beginning with the words "Effective Immediately", ended the RSA's incorrect practise and went on to claim that it (the RSA) had been acting on advice received from the European Commission.

It also claimed that it had asked the European Commission for further advice.

The problem however, is that the RSA's actions were incorrect, and it has apportioned the blame on the European Commission.

Someone in the RSA "screwed up" (the incorrect Circular didnt write itself) and is looking for the European Commission to carry the can.

OK...but what exactly are TalktoEU supposed to do here, exactly, and what are you seeking to clarify?

It seems to me that what you're looking for here is the specific advice given by the Commission to the RSA, and which the RSA is claiming was the "advice" they acted on - or, failing that, seeking to establish that the RSA cannot possibly have been given advice that they could have acted on in such a way.

What you're asking - if that is indeed the case - seems to me to be a question which is entirely outside the remit of TalktoEU as I understand it. They can offer you - and have been offering you - the advice that someone would receive from the Commission if they asked the question the RSA may have asked. You've clearly found that unsatisfactory, which is natural enough, because what it seems to me you're trying to do is to use TalktoEU as the equivalent of a parliamentary question or an FOI request, and what you're getting in response is attempts to clarify something you are, in fact, already clear on, which is how the Directive should be interpreted.

That's not the point at issue, though - the question is (again, I'm presuming) whether the RSA did receive, or could have received, advice from the Commission that could have led to their incorrect practices from 2008-2010.

The problem is that, as I understand it, TalktoEU cannot answer such a question. It's a 'discovery' question, and what they do is 'clarification'. They can clarify - or, rather, request a clarification of - the implications of a Directive, but they cannot, afaik, answer in any definitive way the question of whether the RSA received a particular piece of advice or could have received such advice. To do so would require them to have powers of internal inquiry - and I mean 'inquiry' in its fullest sense, as it were the power of an internal inquisition that could compel the guilty bureaucrat to confess their mis-advice (if such advice were given) or some internal record keeper to definitely state that no such advice was ever given.

I'm a little concerned that you seem to have taken this quite real inability to answer a question of such a nature, and treated it as if it were some form of deliberate obfuscation on the part of the EU, or TalktoEU. In fact, if I'm right, you're in a position rather similar to standing at the information kiosk in Busaras demanding that the person manning the kiosk answer for Bus Eireann's decision to suspend a particular bus route - or, rather more exactly, you're doing the equivalent of asking the Citizens' Information Bureau to find out whether a government department was really given advice by the Attorney-General that led it to act incorrectly, and accusing them of 'covering up' when they tell you that they can't tell you that.

TalktoEU cannot answer such a question. All they can do is ask for the same clarification that the RSA presumably asked for - and the answer they receive will almost certainly be from a different person, and is certainly at a different time. Even if they did by some fluke return the exact same advice given to the RSA, I can't see that it does you any good, first because you still wouldn't know whether that was actually the advice the RSA received, and second because the problem may be that the RSA failed to understand or apply the advice correctly...in which case you'd effectively be asking TalktoEU to conduct an internal inquiry at the RSA.

So, before we go further - am I right about what you're trying to achieve here? Am I correct in thinking that you would like TalktoEU to find out whether the RSA was given advice that they could act on as they did, or alternatively that they weren't or couldn't have been given such advice? Are you trying to use TalktoEU to establish whether the RSA can get the Commission to carry the blame here?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

To, clarify it, here are the questions I asked:

"So, how did the European Commission give conflicting advice to a state agency about the requirements of an EU Directive?

Has the Commission reviewed its previous advice to the RSA as requested and has it supplied any new or different advice to the RSA?

Does the Commission have any concern about whether this Directive was or is being properly implemented in Ireland? "

I dont really think its that hard to grasp.

They are quite legitimate questions.

If it is the case, as you understand it, that TalkToEu, as representative of the European Commission in Ireland cannot answer such questions, perhaps they and (respectfully) not you might explain why.

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

To, clarify it, here are the questions I asked:

"So, how did the European Commission give conflicting advice to a state agency about the requirements of an EU Directive?

Has the Commission reviewed its previous advice to the RSA as requested and has it supplied any new or different advice to the RSA?

Does the Commission have any concern about whether this Directive was or is being properly implemented in Ireland? "

I dont really think its that hard to grasp.

They are quite legitimate questions.

If it is the case, as you understand it, that TalkToEu, as representative of the European Commission in Ireland cannot answer such questions, perhaps they and (respectfully) not you might explain why.

OK - and now you're being hostile to me, as if I were also trying to cover something up. All I want to do here is to clarify what you're trying to clarify.

Your questions:

"So, how did the European Commission give conflicting advice to a state agency about the requirements of an EU Directive?

Political question requiring a political statement from a spokesperson.

Has the Commission reviewed its previous advice to the RSA as requested and has it supplied any new or different advice to the RSA?

Discovery question requiring internal inquiry.

Does the Commission have any concern about whether this Directive was or is being properly implemented in Ireland? "

Also a political question.

So, if that's what you're looking for, I'm now going to refer you back to the clarification I gave out at the beginning of this thread:

They're here as official representatives rather than in a personal capacity, and the purpose of them being here is to answer factual questions about the EU. They are not, therefore, required to answer speculative questions which start from some supposition you may have about the EU's aims or intentions, and they're definitely not required to indulge any conspiracy theory you may have. They can't give a statement on behalf of the EU in response to a political question.

If your question is something like "can the EU freedom of movement be suspended?" they can answer that, because the answer is factual, and to be found in the Treaties and case law of the EU.

If, on the other hand, your question is something like "does the EU have any concern at all for the Irish workers who have lost their jobs/are passed up for jobs because Irish employers can get away with paying below the minimum wage?" or "is Ollie Rehn setting us for IMF intervention" they can't really answer it usefully, because you're asking for a political response on behalf of the EU, and the TalktoEU posters aren't in a position to give such a thing.

I'm sorry, GoingForward, but you're trying to use this service inappropriately. TalktoEU are not Commission spokespeople, they're not some kind of permanent press conference - they're just an advice service, and the questions you're trying to get them to answer are not the kind of questions they're set up to answer.

You can ask TalktoEU to get a clarification on how the Directive applies, but as far as I am aware they cannot answer the questions you're asking, because you're asking for political comment and FOI. That's not in their remit as their remit has been explained to me, and I clearly stated that at the beginning of this thread. I really shouldn't have had to say it again...and I'm slightly irritated here, because I dealt with this matter on the presumption that you were asking a factual question about the interpretation of the Directives in question. Had it been clearer to me that you weren't, I could have helped you stop wasting your time quite some time ago.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

I 'm not sure how I was hostile to you, if you were upset I do apologise, I do not wish to offend you.

Dont take any of the cut and thrust personally, but I am entitled to hold my opinions as strongly as you yours.

There is a danger here that you may be seen as spokesperson for the talktoeu service; you have engaged far more with me, and posted more about the questions now than talktoeu has in answering the questions in almost 4 months.

And yet, talktoeu has certainly not posted that the questions are off limits or out of their scope to answer.

I also feel that as the body from which a significant amount of our national laws emanate from, their is a moral obligation on the European Commission to communicate clearly and honestly, and in the open when issues arise which cause questions to be asked, as they are the ultimate authority on these matters.

And, I am open to believing that that will happen.

So, it may be best to let TalkToEu answer the questions or indeed explain on what grounds they wont actually be answering the questions.

Because, according to the talktoeu website

"Phase two of talktoeu will focuses on three main areas : Economy and jobs, energy and the environment, and the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. As well as this, we will also explain a bit about how the EU works.

To achieve these goals, the talktoeu campaign uses online and social media to reach its audience so you can see what’s happening in your own time whenever you want and as easily as possible.
The website, where you are now, will give facts and links on the EU, especially about our three main areas of focus. We want you to ask questions, take part in discussion, and find out more about the role the EU plays both nationally and in your area."

I've have asked questions, took part in the discussion, and am looking to find out more about the role the EU plays both nationally and in my area.

If they dont want questions, why would they say they do?
Why would they even offer such services if the dont really mean what they say?

Lets keep this simple. Let them answer.

Bye.
Going Forward

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

I 'm not sure how I was hostile to you, if you were upset I do apologise, I do not wish to offend you.

It's not offensive, it's irritating, because it means that instead of understanding what I'm saying, you're assuming some other motive - which your comments below don't dispel.

Going Forward wrote: »

Dont take any of the cut and thrust personally, but I am entitled to hold my opinions as strongly as you yours.

This isn't a question of a disagreement over EU Directives - it's a question of whether you're using a facility provided by the site in an inappropriate manner. I'm sorry to say it, but that's something on which my opinion is relatively final.

Going Forward wrote: »

There is a danger here that you may be seen as spokesperson for the talktoeu service; you have engaged far more with me, and posted more about the questions now than talktoeu has in answering the questions in almost 4 months.

I'm responsible for the forum, and talktoeu are a part of that. As with anything else that happens in the forum, I want to be sure that it's appropriate. There is rather more than a danger here that you're trying to prevent me doing that job by threatening me with an accusation of political bias - but I get those all the time and from all directions, so I really don't find it impressive.

Talktoeu's role here is like an EU information kiosk that boards allows in their forum. Your current role is that of the guy who wants the information kiosk people to act as political spokespeople, and who, when told that the kiosk people can't answer such questions, says "but it says information right there". My job, in turn, is rapidly becoming one of taking you by the elbow and telling you politely but firmly that you can either stop harassing the kiosk guys or you can go back out onto the street.

Going Forward wrote: »

And yet, talktoeu has certainly not posted that the questions are off limits or out of their scope to answer.

Yet haven't been able to answer the questions you've posed them, and have rather obviously returned answers in line with what I have been told is their remit. I'm not 100% sure, to be honest, that they were any clearer on what you were trying to achieve than I have been up to now.

Going Forward wrote: »

I also feel that as the body from which a significant amount of our national laws emanate from, their is a moral obligation on the European Commission to communicate clearly and honestly, and in the open when issues arise which cause questions to be asked, as they are the ultimate authority on these matters.

And, I am open to believing that that will happen.

So, it may be best to let TalkToEu answer the questions or indeed explain on what grounds they wont actually be answering the questions.

Because, according to the talktoeu website

"Phase two of talktoeu will focuses on three main areas : Economy and jobs, energy and the environment, and the implementation of the Lisbon Treaty. As well as this, we will also explain a bit about how the EU works.

To achieve these goals, the talktoeu campaign uses online and social media to reach its audience so you can see what’s happening in your own time whenever you want and as easily as possible.
The website, where you are now, will give facts and links on the EU, especially about our three main areas of focus. We want you to ask questions, take part in discussion, and find out more about the role the EU plays both nationally and in your area."

I've have asked questions, took part in the discussion, and am looking to find out more about the role the EU plays both nationally and in my area.

If they dont want questions, why would they say they do?
Why would they even offer such services if the dont really mean what they say?

None of what you've quoted appears to have any relevance to asking them politically loaded questions which would more appropriately form part of a commission of inquiry. You are doing exactly the "but it says information right there" thing I referred to earlier.

Going Forward wrote: »

Lets keep this simple. Let them answer.

Bye.
Going Forward

No - enough already. You really haven't persuaded me here. Unless you can produce better reasoning as to why you should pursue a political line of enquiry with a service that doesn't have that remit, and then waste mod time complaining that you're not getting the answers you want, then I'm not disposed to allow you to continue using the forum for whatever your issue is with the RSA.

I will take the issue up with talktoeu, and I may give further clarification here, but your pursuit of this issue through this forum is inappropriate, and is not something I'm prepared to give any more time to. You may take that as a mod instruction in the matter, and failure to heed it will result in a ban.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

From the boards.ie blog

http://blog.boards.ie/2010/03/24/welcome-to-representatives-from-talktoeu-and-the-european-consumer-centre/

"Our first two representatives are John from TalktoEU who will be answering questions on the EU Commission – where a role is played by EU policy or where your question is related to EU legislation – and Caroline from the European Consumer Centre who will be answering about consumer right issues when buying goods or services from another European country. There will be more people and content involved in future, including interviews with MEPs and representatives, exclusive Q&As and more."

I'll say no more.

Going Forward

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

The problem is that, as I understand it, TalktoEU cannot answer such a question. It's a 'discovery' question, and what they do is 'clarification'. They can clarify - or, rather, request a clarification of - the implications of a Directive, but they cannot, afaik, answer in any definitive way the question of whether the RSA received a particular piece of advice or could have received such advice. To do so would require them to have powers of internal inquiry - and I mean 'inquiry' in its fullest sense...

I dont want to really get involved except to point out that going on the TalkToEU answers up to this point, the above is quite obviously incorrect. The TalkToEU reps have answered on the specific advice - albeit not to the satisfaction of GoingForward.

The Commission has informed the Irish authorities that a Member State may impose more stringent requirements for domestic vehicles not traveling in other Member States (i.e. to equip all diesel powered vehicles - not traveling on the territory of another Member State - registered as of 1 October 2001 with speed limiters). Directive 92/6/EEC[1][1] does not prevent Member States to apply more stringent rules for domestic vehicles as long as they are only used for national transport.

We've requested, from DG Transport, to confirm whether they have answered this request for more information or not, and if so, what that answer was in full.

The two institutions have been in contact , and our colleagues in the ECR Ireland are requesting information on the nature of this correspondence.

In response to our request for more information surrounding the correspondence between the European Commission and the RSA, and at the request of the European Commission Representation Ireland, representatives from the DG Mobility and Transport have responded with the below.

You'll see that it's a similar response to the one previously given.

The Commission has replied to the letter from the Irish Road Safety Authority dated 21 October 2010 following Commission internal consultation by 21 December 2010....

From the above posts by TalkToEU, it is apparent that they do, in fact, answer discovery questions and ask questions pertaining to specific correspondance, and not just clarify directives in general.

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

I dont want to really get involved except to point out that going on the TalkToEU answers up to this point, the above is quite obviously incorrect. The TalkToEU reps have answered on the specific advice - albeit not to the satisfaction of GoingForward.


From the above posts by TalkToEU, it is apparent that they do, in fact, answer discovery questions and ask questions pertaining to specific correspondance, and not just clarify directives in general.

Be that as it may, I can't allow the use of the forum for GoingForward's continued and dedicated pursuit of his issues with the RSA. Whether he chooses to pursue the matter with talktoeu on their own site is up to him entirely, but it really has gone way beyond what I consider appropriate in this forum. You might see that as limiting the role talktoeu can play on the forum, but it would be up to talktoeu to register their objection to such restriction with me, and to date they haven't done so. As I said, I'll take it up with them.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

Dear Scofflaw, you wrote:

"No - enough already. You really haven't persuaded me here. Unless you can produce better reasoning as to why you should pursue a political line of enquiry with a service that doesn't have that remit, and then waste mod time complaining that you're not getting the answers you want, then I'm not disposed to allow you to continue using the forum for whatever your issue is with the RSA."

Maybe this would help Political matters were once a source of delight regarding the TalkToEu forum on Boards.ie

You know at this stage what the "issue" is.

If not, here is a synopsis:

It is the RSA's claim that it acted on advice it received from the European Commission that permitted it to require certain vehicles to have speed limiters fitted.

But the European Commission later publicly contradicted the RSA's requirements in an answer to a European Parliamentary Question submitted by 3 Irish MEPS regarding the implementation of Directive 2002/85 in Ireland.

The RSA retracted those requirements.

I asked TalkeToEu about this "issue" And why shouldnt I?

They may be difficult questions, but they are definitely not outside of the remit of the TalkToEU service regarding EU legislation and policy according to:

http://blog.boards.ie/2010/03/24/welcome-to-representatives-from-talktoeu-and-the-european-consumer-centre/


Do you agree, do the links not convey the same information to you as they do to me?


Going Forward

Scofflaw

Going Forward wrote: »

Dear Scofflaw, you wrote:

"No - enough already. You really haven't persuaded me here. Unless you can produce better reasoning as to why you should pursue a political line of enquiry with a service that doesn't have that remit, and then waste mod time complaining that you're not getting the answers you want, then I'm not disposed to allow you to continue using the forum for whatever your issue is with the RSA."

Maybe this would help Political matters were once a source of delight regarding the TalkToEu forum on Boards.ie

You know at this stage what the "issue" is.

If not, here is a synopsis:

It is the RSA's claim that it acted on advice it received from the European Commission that permitted it to require certain vehicles to have speed limiters fitted.

But the European Commission later publicly contradicted the RSA's requirements in an answer to a European Parliamentary Question submitted by 3 Irish MEPS regarding the implementation of Directive 2002/85 in Ireland.

The RSA retracted those requirements.

I asked TalkeToEu about this "issue" And why shouldnt I?

They may be difficult questions, but they are definitely not outside of the remit of the TalkToEU service regarding EU legislation and policy according to:

http://blog.boards.ie/2010/03/24/welcome-to-representatives-from-talktoeu-and-the-european-consumer-centre/


Do you agree, do the links not convey the same information to you as they do to me?


Going Forward

Sigh...they convey to me, I think, exactly what they convey to you - that the Commission have definitely contradicted the advice the RSA claim to have received and acted on. You're asking talktoeu to find out what advice the RSA were given. OK...and? If they cannot find the advice as received by the RSA, what does that mean? That the EU is covering something up? That the RSA never received the advice they claim to have received? The possibilities are endless...and pointless, which is a big part of my problem here.

What exactly do you believe that talktoeu can do for you here, why are you pursuing the issue relentlessly in this forum, and why should it be something I have to spend my time on?

If you're happy to pursue this entirely with talktoeu, just get on with it - somewhere else if you can't justify doing it here. Don't keep dragging me in a stick to beat them with, and then objecting to me asking you to justify the use of my time.

moderately irritated,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sigh...they convey to me, I think, exactly what they convey to you - that the Commission have definitely contradicted the advice the RSA claim to have received and acted on. You're asking talktoeu to find out what advice the RSA were given. OK...and? If they cannot find the advice as received by the RSA, what does that mean? That the EU is covering something up? That the RSA never received the advice they claim to have received? The possibilities are endless...and pointless, which is a big part of my problem here.

What exactly do you believe that talktoeu can do for you here, why are you pursuing the issue relentlessly in this forum, and why should it be something I have to spend my time on?

If you're happy to pursue this entirely with talktoeu, just get on with it - somewhere else if you can't justify doing it here. Don't keep dragging me in a stick to beat them with, and then objecting to me asking you to justify the use of my time.

moderately irritated,
Scofflaw

The links I referred to were these two below: (As I did not make it clear in my post, you will have to take my word that I did not intend to ask you to comment on the subject).

Under Posts Tagged ‘Politics’
http://blog.boards.ie/tag/politics/

I referred to that because you said:
"You can ask TalktoEU to get a clarification on how the Directive applies, but as far as I am aware they cannot answer the questions you're asking, because you're asking for political comment and FOI. That's not in their remit as their remit has been explained to me, and I clearly stated that at the beginning of this thread."

and
http://blog.boards.ie/2010/03/24/welcome-to-representatives-from-talktoeu-and-the-european-consumer-centre/


And the second link refers to what the TalkToEu service offers:

"Our first two representatives are John from TalktoEU who will be answering questions on the EU Commission – where a role is played by EU policy or where your question is related to EU legislation – and Caroline from the European Consumer Centre who will be answering about consumer right issues when buying goods or services from another European country. There will be more people and content involved in future, including interviews with MEPs and representatives, exclusive Q&As and more."

My questions were accepted on the forum, neither yourself as moderator or TalkToEu questioned their legitimacy or whether they were outside of the remit of the service.

Indeed, when I raised the points about the TalkToEu service,
you wrote:

"Eh, that's a bit of a jump. Still, I am now concerned by the lack of any ongoing communication here and I'll see what I can do to raise that concern.

Don't necessarily expect a swift resolution, though...it can take up to three months to get something agreed even amongst the mods."

A couple of weeks later and you threaten to ban me,

Thats hardly fair.



Yours

Going Forward

Scofflaw

My questions were accepted on the forum, neither yourself as moderator or TalkToEu questioned their legitimacy or whether they were outside of the remit of the service.

Indeed, when I raised the points about the TalkToEu service,
you wrote:

"Eh, that's a bit of a jump. Still, I am now concerned by the lack of any ongoing communication here and I'll see what I can do to raise that concern.

Don't necessarily expect a swift resolution, though...it can take up to three months to get something agreed even amongst the mods."

A couple of weeks later and you threaten to ban me,

Thats hardly fair.

There are two separate issues there. One is the question of talktoeu's speed of response and exact remit, which I've agreed to raise with them. The second is your personal dogged pursuit of some kind of issue with the RSA through the forum.

What I'm telling you here is that the latter is not something that I'm happy with, and until I've had the discussions with talktoeu I've stated I'll have, you're not welcome to continue it here. That's a rule I apply to anyone who appears to wish to use the forum to pursue a personal crusade or issue, and I'm applying it to you.

Further discussion here is pretty pointless until I've spoken to talktoeu.

moderately,
Scofflaw

Going Forward

Thats Fine.

I'll be waiting on the naughty step till you come back.;)

Going Forward

Hi Scofflaw,

A couple of weeks have now elapsed.
May I ask if any enquiries are ongoing?

Going Forward

Almost a month has passed.

Going Forward

Unless the TalkToEU representative objects, I think its time to lock that thread now as the representative does not appear to be equipped to answer the questions asked

Its up to them, and the Moderators.

Lockstep

No point locking the thread based around one question. There could be others who want to weigh in.