Frequently Asked Questions

Here is a list of questions and answers frequently received by Linda, which you may find helpful.

Where can I get help with cases involving the European Convention on Human Rights?

The European Convention of Human Rights was drawn up after World War II to prevent the kind of human rights abuses that led to the Nazi Holocaust. Individual countries sign up to the Convention and individuals can appeal to the Strasbourg based European Court of Human Rights if they feel that the provisions of the Convention have not been properly implemented in their own country. However, you can only appeal to the Strasbourg Court once you have exhausted all legal remedies in your own country. Since 2000, the European Convention has been incorporated in UK law through the Human Rights Act. This means the provisions of the Convention can be used as the basis for legal arguments in UK Courts. Further information about the Convention and the European Court of Human Rights is available from http://www.humanrights.gov.uk.

Professional legal advice is strongly recommended in order to see whether a case could be covered by the Human Rights Act. As a first step, you may wish to consult with this webpage provided by Liberty. Please note that we cannot offer any comment or advice on this webpage or its contents.

There is often confusion between the work of the European Union and that of the European Court of Human Rights. The European Union does have a court of its own: the EU Court of Justice, but its task is limited to ensuring that the EU laws which EU governments have signed up to are properly applied.

In other words, the European Convention on Human Rights and the Court are not linked to the European Union and their work is not related to that of MEPs.

Following the No votes in France and the Netherlands, EU governments agreed a period of reflection to extend the ratification process for the draft constitution. In June 2007, EU leaders agreed to replace the Constitutional Treaty with an 'Amending' or 'Reform' Treaty. You can find out more about this treaty here.

The government does not believe that it is necessary to hold a referendum on the reform treaty, in view of the changes made from the constitutional treaty. Britain has never previously held a referendum on any international or European treaty.

The British government says; "If you bring in goods on which tax has been paid in an EU country, you do not have to pay any tax or duty on them in the UK. However any alcohol or tobacco you bring in must be for your own use and transported by you." For full information, please click here.

Since the EU's 1994 budget, the European Court of Auditors (ECA) have had to give a Statement of Assurance on the legality and regularity of the EU's accounts. Each year, they have given a positive statement on the Revenue (income - which is the responsibility of the European Commission) and on the Commitments and Administration (also the Commission's responsibility). It has yet to give a positive statement on Payments. More than 80% of payments are the responsibility of individual governments.

The EU receives income from Governments and then redistributes money back, mainly in the form of CAP payments, regional funds and research grants.

Does this mean that there no corruption in the EU? No. Corrupt practices and mismanagement have been found. New rules and procedure to tighten up financial controls have been introduced and those suspected of misconduct have been suspended.

The EU audit system shares the weakness common in many such large organisations: money is spent by so many organisations and individuals over such a large area, that the Auditors cannot guarantee that the exact amounts were spent correctly. The US federal budget has not had a positive statement of assurance for about 8 years. The Department for Work and Pensions (formerly the DSS) has not had its equivalent statement for the last 15 years - and its budget is larger than that of the whole EU.

Linda would like to see a system whereby payments had to be accounted for by the 25 national governments individually, rather than in one single statement for the whole EU. Governments would then have to take full responsibility for the EU funds managed by them with proper auditing at national level. This would further improve the accuracy of the information provided and increase confidence in the system.

You can find a PDF document produced by the European Commission which answers some common myths about EU spending by clicking here.

Do not be tempted into rushing into buying a timeshare. A reputable company will not need to pressure you into signing on the dotted line. If the offer sounds too good to be true, it probably is. Signing up while on holiday may not be the best idea.

Guidance for people considering buying a timeshare is available from the Timeshare Consumers Association and Consumer Direct. You may also wish to see the information provided by the Department for Trade and Industry.

If you are having problems with your timeshare, or you believe that your timeshare company may have acted illegally, you should contact your local Trading Standards office (your local council will be able to advise you about how to do so) or Citizens Advice Bureau. The Timeshare Consumers Association may also be able to advise you.

Timeshare purchases are covered by EU law to provide some protection to consumers such as a cooling off period. However, a loophole has developed with "Holidays Clubs" which are not covered by the same consumer protection rights. Please examine any contract carefully. Know your rights!

For information about the Timeshare Directive, click here.

Anti EU campaigners often claim that Britian would be better off simply signing up to the European Economic Area, which consists of EU countries plus Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein.

The EEA essentially extends the EU single market to those three non EU countries. As such, they are required to accept internal market legislation but have no say how that legislation is made.

In my view this clearly diminishes their national sovereignty, not something the UK could accept. 

Anti EU campaigns also claim that being in the EEA would be a free option meaning we would not have to contribute to the EU budget. That is clearly false. If the UK was a EEA-EFTA member instead of a full EU member its contributions to the EU would at the least if worked out on population be almost €13 billion over five years and if worked out on GDP about €8 billion over five years. We would also still have to adopt the majority of EU legislation with no real say on its formation.