The EU’s attack on e-cigarettes will bring a golden age of vaping to an end

Walking down most British high streets you could be forgiven for thinking that e-cigarettes are more common than tobacco. It’s a false impression. There are still more smokers than vapers, but more than anywhere else in the world, you see men and women clutching a variety of shiny vaping devices. I suspect only a handful of them are aware that their e-cigarettes will be snatched from them in a few months time as a result of EU regulations that are — even by the standards of Brussels — misguided, ill-considered and counter-productive.

There are too many petty regulations contained in the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) to list here. Suffice to say it will lead to most of the e-cigarettes on the British market being withdrawn from sale. Moreover, it will be the most popular type of e-cigarettes that will be affected. Disposable ‘first generation’ products, known as cigalikes, will be largely untouched by the new laws, but their market share is in decline and they are increasingly irrelevant except as a way for smokers to experiment with vaping. Cigalikes are simply not as good as the refillable tank systems that are the first choice of two-thirds of vapers.

My own e-cigarette, like most of those seen in the hands of vapers up and down the country, could breach any number of laws by the time the TPD comes into effect next May. It is refillable but not leak-proof (there is no such thing as leak-proof). The tank can hold more than 2ml of fluid, as most refillables do. My e-cigarette fluid of choice does not sell in large enough quantities for the manufacturers to persist when expensive medicine-style tests are mandated. The bottle it comes in contains more than 10ml of fluid and is not tamper-proof (there is no such thing as tamper-proof). I could go on (and in this fact sheet, I do).

In any case, the market is evolving so rapidly that my current e-cigarette will probably be old hat by next year. The pace of innovation is so rapid that the first e-cigarette I purchased in 2009 now looks like a relic of the inter-war years. Unfortunately, EU regulations will make it very difficult for companies to launch innovative, new and better products in the future. Even if manufacturers can afford to clear the regulatory hurdles they will struggle to let vapers know about it because the EU has also waved through an advertising ban. The TPD is full of pointless, consumer-hating, money-sapping bureaucracy of this sort. A product described by Prof David Nutt as the ‘greatest health advance since vaccinations’ will be suffocated.

I genuinely don’t know whether I shall return to smoking full-time in May 2017 when the last of the stock from vaping’s brief golden age stock must be sold. I expect that I shall be well served by the mail order market, not to mention the black market, but getting the right fluid is a worry as I dislike 90 per cent of the flavours out there. I’m fairly sanguine about the possibility of returning to a 20-a-day habit. The growing number of venues that ban vaping — for no good reason — make smoking more appealing by the day.

The ‘public health’ lobby has always given the impression that it cares more about my health than I do, so it is remarkable that they have engineered a situation in which smoking will become relatively more appealing than an alternative which, as a recent Public Health England report concluded, is 95 per cent safer. That report represented a decisive swing in the balance of power towards the pro-vaping faction of the ‘public health’ lobby. The anti-vaping extremists are not going down without a fight, but most health organisations in Britain now view e-cigarettes as a positive development.

It is too little, too late, however. These groups were missing in action when the EU regulations were being discussed two years ago. The result is a Tobacco Products Directive which is effectively pro-smoking.

Glimmers of hope remain. Civil servants do not have much wriggle room, but with some creativity of interpretation they could implement the TPD in a way that would cause the least damage. Moreover, Totally Wicked, an e-cigarette company, last week challenged the TPD in the European Court of Justice. Writing in the Times, Matt Ridley says they have an ‘excellent case’. Clive Bates, former director of Action on Smoking and Health and a leading expert on e-cigarettes, thinks the challenge is ‘very strong’.

I have no way of assessing the merits of the case, let alone second guessing the outcome. It all comes down to whether the directive violates two of the EU’s supposedly cherished requirements — proportionality and subsidiarity. To my non-lawyerly mind, it is difficult to tell whether the legislation is proportionate because it is not obvious what it is trying to achieve. The stated objective is to improve the functioning of the common market. Banning online sales and erecting unnecessary and costly regulatory hurdles will not advance that objective.

But facilitating free trade is only the stated objective. The unspoken objective is improving health. Since the EU has no legal competence over health policy, it tends to dress its nanny state legislation in the cloak of market harmonisation, but even as a health policy there is no trace of proportionality, subsidiarity or effectiveness. By making the market less competitive and reducing the appeal of products, the TPD is certain to disincentivise smokers from switching and will likely incentivise some vapers to return to smoking. The ends are so confused, and the means so counter-productive, that it is disproportionate by definition.

As for the principle of subsidiarity — ie allowing member states to make their own decisions whenever possible — national governments are clearly capable of deciding how large an e-cigarette’s refill tank should be and how much nicotine the fluid should contain (there is currently no limit on either in the UK and no problems have been reported as a result). The common market is no more compromised by existing differences between member states’ regulation of vaping products than it is compromised by Britain’s preference for serving beer in pints.

The TPD will hinder the common market and damage health, and yet its total failure to achieve either of its objectives will not necessarily be enough for Totally Wicked to win its case. The ECJ has a habit of siding with the European Commission. If the case fails, all is lost.

Or perhaps not. There is one last avenue of hope. David Cameron will soon be attempting his renegotiations with the EU. He is unlikely to succeed in getting any concessions on core EU aims such as free movement of labour or ‘ever-closer union’, but if Brussels feels the need to toss him a bone it will be on relatively marginal issues such as fishing quotas and sugar tariffs. E-cigarette regulation should be added to his list.

There is a precedent for this kind of negotiation. When Sweden was preparing to hold a referendum on EU membership in 1995, the prohibition of a smokeless tobacco product known as snus became such a sticking point for Swedish voters that the EU allowed them an exemption from the ban. Snus is exceptionally popular with Swedes and, given that they ultimately voted to join the EU by a wafer-thin majority of 51 per cent to 49 per cent, it is quite possible that the exemption secured their accession.

The Swedish snus exemption continues to this day, making a mockery of market harmonisation but offering important (though largely unheeded) lessons for regulators of nicotine products. Like e-cigarettes, snus was said to act as a ‘gateway’ to smoking. Like e-cigarettes, it was claimed that snus appealed to children. There were fears about ‘dual use’. In the event, none of these scare stories stood up to scrutiny, but snus resembles e-cigarettes in being vastly safer than cigarettes and, 20 years after securing its opt-out from the smokeless tobacco ban, Sweden has by far the lowest smoking rate in Europe.

The EU could have used the Tobacco Products Directive to legalise snus. Instead it has doubled down by launching an assault on another product that offers European smokers a gateway from cigarettes. There will be more than three million vapers by the time the EU snatches away their e-cigarettes. If the European courts uphold this dreadful legislation, there will be votes for any politician who comes to their defence.


  • dodderer1

    A good example of the disconnect between Public Health and the real world is shown by one of the ASH responses to the recent TPD2 consultation regarding warnings:

    “Given the likely major public health gains from smokers switching to electronic cigarettes, the Government will wish to exercise care to ensure that warnings on electronic cigarettes do not deter smokers from starting to use them as an alternative to tobacco products.”

    For a charity dedicated to reducing smoking,it seems they have no concept of the harm that will be caused when the majority of the current successful products have to be removed from the market.They appear to think that the golden age will continue irrespective of the quality and choice of device

    Even odder is the strong possibility that the main beneficiaries of the new legislation will be the tobacco industry with their basic,least effective but compliant models.ASH and BAT make a powerful partnership!

    • Here is how U can get paid ninty-five dollars an hour… After searching for a job that suits me for half a year , I started making money over this site and now I possibly could not be more satisfied. After 3 months doing this my income is around five thousand dollarsmonth If this interests you: 1)navigate to the website link in the description

    • Carlos Malleum

      Charity…. ASH? …. State funded quango desperate to stir things up to justify their existence despite smoking being effectively banished to unacceptability. I wonder how many deaths caused by diesel particulates Ash claim are because of smoking? Their hysteria has blurred the debate about air pollution and as a result they have quite possibly been responsible for unnecessary deaths themselves having focused public and legislative action on a minor problem whilst ignoring the train wreck of air pollution caused by the obsession with low carbon.

  • jude

    Something I find interesting, is that the TPD will likely ban all vape products except the cigalikes. One of the excuses used for banning vaping in public areas is that some people, including children, (apparently), get confused and can’t tell the difference between people smoking and people vaping. This excuse can be dismissed at the moment, because the vast majority of vape products look nothing at all like cigarettes. So, to me at least, its seems odd to ban the products that do not cause confusion, and keep those that do. Perhaps I’m reading into this, but perhaps leaving only cigalikes on the market will give these pinch mouthed puritans a boost in their efforts to ban vaping altogether?

    Or perhaps, like my own country, Australia, there is no rational or evidence based reason for any regulations in regards to vaping or vapour products. Its all about toxic ANTZ ideology, and stupid, ignorant politicians.

  • I totally agree.

    And even that too little, too late reaction of PHE is much better than what we have in the rest of Europe.

  • Tim Hadfield

    Our European leaders serve the interests of the cigarette industry, NOT US.

    • Zarniwoop

      I can’t see how with all the clamp downs on tobacco. No I think the EU is serving the pharmaceutical giants with their nicotine replacement products with a success rate of 10% and a declining market share.

      Pharma provided nicotine replacement (patches gum inhilators) were generating £3billion a year. They would do anything to boost that and keeps smokers returning again and again for their products

      • Pioneer

        Yes, very big money for the pharma companies from their useless nicotine replacement products.
        Vaping is a threat to them The fact it saves lives is not relevant.

      • Klaus K

        Exactly, Zarniwoop. The EU-commission are puppets of Big Pharma, who will now get another competiting product out of its way. In 1992 they got rid of snus and now they get rid of E-cigs.

        Big Pharma’s goal is the EU-monopoly for Nicorette, and that is the only intention behind the TPD.

  • tedster11

    Most of the political elite are non exec directors on boards of big tobacco companies, the government spend the taxes from tobacco well before they recieve it. Vaping is a movement that threatens the status quo, it will be crushed unfortunately, however the govt have tried to ban class A and B drugs and lets be honest its not difficult to get hold of these by all accounts, so im sure if vaping gets pushed underground it will be the same story. Hopefully all the health organisations will stand shoulder to shoulder with the vapers and make a strong stand.

    • Ben Edwards

      The issue with illegal drugs is that the black market extends no provisions for quality of product. As I’m sure everyone knows, cocaine has been found to be cut with anything from baby powder to veterinary dewormer, and little bottles of chemical liquids would be extremely susceptible to contamination through both accidental and deliberate circumstances. Indeed, I vaguely recall reading an article some time ago about a number of Chinese manufacturers found selling e-liquids containing heavy metals and carcinogens. E-cigarettes must be kept legal to maintain them as a viable device for popular mass consumption: a ban would be a catastrophic failure of governments’ duties of care for their populations, an outcome made infinitely more regrettable by the utter lack of evidence for its prosecution.

      The WHO estimates smoking causes the deaths of 5 million people worldwide per year. World War I is estimated to have caused the deaths of 17 million people over four, giving a stomach-churningly similar rate of deaths. To ban e-cigarettes would be to allow the equivalent of the first World War to rage ever on, day after day, year after year. Contemporary politicians are rightly excoriated by history for sleepwalking into the carnage of the Great War; I wonder whether the future will deliver the same verdict for those actively legislating to kill just as many.

    • Zarniwoop

      I think you’ll find it is the health elite and their ties to the big pharmaceutical giants not to mention the World Health Organisation sock puppets who are well and truly in bed with big pharma

  • Zarniwoop

    Have you ever tried snuff? That old fashioned method of taking tobacco that is seeing a come back? If they end up banning everything I shall persist with snuff.

    No recorded health affects and very enjoyable too 🙂

    http://sharrowmills-online.com/information/health-information.html

    • Yvonne Leigh

      I’ve had vapers for 1 year now,Before
      I could hardly breathe my chest was so bad, with chest infections, smokers cough, I’ve have none now, I was on so many rolled cigs don’t want to go back to them days.

      • Pioneer

        The EU will screw that up for you.

      • CouchSlob

        I was on so many rolled cigs don’t want to go back to them days.

        You don’t have to.

    • You’ll get cancer of the face and have to have your nose cut off and a large chunk of surrounding flesh. Won’t it be fun going out for a walk and getting your shopping? At least you’ll always find the supermarket ‘quiet’ as the people will all have run out of the door as you entered in horror as the Halloween person / horror character.

      • Zarniwoop

        Funny man 😀 In over 300 years of use British snuff has no recorded cases of cancer of any part of the body 😀

        Except for one farmer who used to put snuff in his ear (over 42 years) and developed a small squamous cell carcinoma

        • This is not true at all, snuff and chewing tobacco create a serious risk of squamous cell carcinoma in the head and neck. Any doctor will tell you that, particularly in countries like the USA where there are large numbers of tobacco chewers.

          • Zarniwoop

            You obviously get confused Americans don’t use dry snuff they use that wet snuff a totally different product which you put in your mouth like chewing tobacco.

            I refer to dry snuff which is sniffed a British habit and any doctor will tell you that dry snuff has no carcinogenic properties 😀

      • Steve Bell

        All up and down this blog, you’re just proving to be a ton of fun aren’t you.

        Fucking troll.

  • goodsoldier

    Nobody seems to suggest that we push hard to get out of this authoritarian monstrosity called the EU! They will start to control, ban and decide many more aspects of our lives if we stay in. Please, why should they have any power over us at all! This is a matter for individual nation states and they should not attempt to interfere any longer. Should the EU decide on how our choices and children should be influenced? LEAVE EU!!!!!

  • Malcolm Stevas

    I think vaping is plebeian, vulgar and pointless (at least a pack of Rothmans actually looked the real deal) but it surprises me not that the EU is sticking its hideous bureaucratic fingers into this. There is potential, I feel, for a reality-TV show featuring a variant on something proposed many years ago by Peter Cook and Dudley Moore, with EU fonctionnaires nailed to the wall and the one who screams loudest gets exiled for life to, say, North Korea.

    • PaD

      And I think youre a condescending fucking snob..whats it to you that people choose to vape to replace smoming?
      live on a clean air f…g island.

      • PaD

        Smoking!

      • Malcolm Stevas

        It’s nothing at all to me, old chap, whether plebs like you “vape” or indeed keep on “smoming” [sic].

        • Zarniwoop

          “Old chap” “Plebs” I smell the rich ripe stench of condescension wafting on the air

      • Zarniwoop

        Love that response 😀 had me on the floor laughing.

    • Steve Bell

      There is potential, I feel, for a reality TV show where I close my fingers around your throat live on worldwide TV, and people then vote for how hard they want me to squeeze. I’d pay to watch that.

      • Malcolm Stevas

        Slow reader, or a dinosaur’s nervous system? I wrote that yonks ago. Dunno if you’re the same Steve Bell whose often vicious Leftist agit-prop decorates the pages of The Guardian (not long now until it folds) but you share some of his characteristics.

        • Steve Bell

          It doesn’t really matter when you wrote it you plonker – it’s out there for people to react to. I reacted to it. Live with it. If you cant take it then dont put shit out there for people to react to.

          And no, thank fuck I have nothing to do with that left wing extremist shit rag, or it’s 60 odd year old cartoon illustrators (I have a real existence not just some layabout who draws badly and gets by on his mates). I’m not that Steve Bell, I’m not a tramp and I shave for a start and there’s something ever so disturbing about a man that old drawing cartoons anyway.. You’re barking up the wrong tree hugger.

          P.S You share a number of characteristics with a couple of questionable people too, but since I was here to react to what you said, not to throw personal jibes, and since that seems all you’ve got to offer me in return then I am steadying myself for a predictable reply. You have already set the trend here. I guess you’ve got plenty of personals to give out because you cant actually defend what you said, can you?

          • Malcolm Stevas

            “not to throw personal jibes”… You write like a chav.

          • Steve Bell

            I may write like a chav in your opinion, but I’m extremely comfortable with who I am and have already proven that I am good enough to outwit you. I’ll refrain from retorting with a jibe as your reply was as predictable as I stated it would be and you only get less and less creative from here. Thanks for proving my point and I’ll be moving on now.

          • Malcolm Stevas

            “Outwit…” Love it.

  • Dogsnob

    I was encouraged to take up smoking as a response to the tobacco ban in pubs.
    Wish I’d discovered the joy of pipe-smoking much earlier. Thank you arseholes.

    • I can’t understand this post. As a non smoker you took up pipe smoking because it was banned in pubs?

      • Dogsnob

        Yes, you understand perfickly.

      • Steve Bell

        fucking troll.

  • Dancing Paul

    When we’re suitably softened up we’ll be told that the legislation won’t be necessary if tobacco tax is applied to the products.

  • JonBW

    Exactly.
    To be honest, I can’t be bothered to switch to vaping when the restrictions are just as draconian as those on real smoking.

    • Then get your funeral plan ready – and quick. You will lose at least a decade of healthy life by continuing to smoke. My GP partner tells me of her palliative care of at least two nice people every week who die a miserable death about ten of fifteen years too early. It is quite depressing.

      • JonBW

        Actually, it’s debatable whether you lose a decade of ‘healthy’ life through smoking: statistically, smoking reduces length of life, but the years lost (or the years gained by not smoking) tend to be characterised by chronic ill-health anyway.

        That’s why hospitals are full of non-smokers in their 80s and 90s with long-term age-related conditions.

        • While it is true that if you live into your late eighties and nineties you will fail before you die and require treatment of some kinds, it would be a serious error to assume that smokers dying young save the health service a lot of money. they don’t COPD, heart disease and lung cancer cause a great many people long term illness and require intensive intervention – only this is often going on in their case at an age well below that at which non-smokers in large number are requiring anything at all besides the occasional GP visit. I am on very familiar terms with a number of GPs since my partner is one, and I often when asking how her day went, hear how some poor soul in a terrible state is dying at an unconscionably young age. Hardly a week goes by without some such tragedy – people sometimes in their fifties and frequently in their sixties. Why would anyone consider a miserable death at the age of fifty or sixty, or even seventy, preferable to being pretty robust at that age and going on to fail in your eighties? I know which I prefer.

          • JonBW

            I’m afraid the evidence proves the opposite.

            Research has shown that smokers incur lower healthcare costs over their lifetime than non-smokers; obese people also incur lower costs than those of a healthy weight. The work was undertaken by a Dutch scientist called Van Baal and has been published in credible journals.

            GPs only see a fraction of the NHS system: the big costs are in acute care (hospitals).

            If you think about it, the fact that demands on our system as more people adopt ‘healthy lifestyles’ are pushing the NHS into permanent crisis demonstrates this.

          • Maybe you’d like to see euthenasia to cut costs.

            As for this:

            “GPs only see a fraction of the NHS system: the big costs are in acute care (hospitals).”

            GPs are certainly the cheapest part of the NHS. They get about 10% of the money, but they carry out 98% of the doctor patient interactions.

          • JonBW

            No, I am absolutely opposed to euthanasia.

            However, I would like to see proper care for elderly people with chronic conditions: this is where the NHS fails disastrously at present (and it is certainly not the fault of GPs).

            Whilst policy makers blithely and ignorantly carry on planning on the assumption that ‘healthier lifestyles’ will reduce the demand for health care however, we are going to see more crisis and more scandals like Mid-Staffs.

      • goodsoldier

        Repent and you shall be saved, dreary Sparknottle. You will die too, but at least you won’t be able to blame yourself for anything, right?

        • What? You don’t think people should be aware that smoking will take at least a decade off your lifespan? Dreary? The dreary thing is to die like my grandfathers died – in their sixties or very early seventies. One of my grandfathers had died of lung cancer before he reached my age. Meanwhile, I walk eight or cycle ten miles every day and enjoy good health. This isn’t virtue on my part. I have plenty of vices, but I don’t smoke and will likely live a lot longer than if I did. Give it up mate. You only get one life. Why throw it away?

          • Steve Bell

            Enjoy your longer life living under these extremist dictators. Me personally, I dont want to live much longer past now, and I’m 42. Considering where the world is heading, it might not be an idea to want to stick around. But good luck with it anyway.

          • You’re in a bad way Stevei boy. My guess is that when you read this, you will have a hangover.

  • Ambientereal

    People in every office are becoming extremists. If it is not perfect, it is forbidden. But, have we perfect health, perfect food, perfect hygiene, perfect environment, perfect air, perfect water? How are we going to die if we have a perfect world? Of boredom indeed.

    • Zarniwoop

      Welcome to the new puritan age at the rate these extremists are going the 70’s and 80’s will seem a golden age of freedom and tolerance

  • TrulyDisqusted

    As with everything EU, follow the money. The EU don’t care a stuff about our health. The European Vaping industry has got to be worth Billions and presently those billions are going into the wrong pockets, ie, small artisan producers, not into Big Pharma and Big Tobacco.

    The EU exists to ensure that our money and taxes always land in the right multinational corporations pockets and they’ll use legislation to cut out the small guy in every industry imaginable.

    Thus it is with TPD and so it will continue with TTIP. The EU don’t give a stuff about us. They just want our money. All of it.

    • Simon Wardell

      Yes. Sounds very similar to a certain person who wanted world control X amount of years ago. Or at least they resemble him in my eyes. Just using different methods to get thensame result.

  • PaD

    We need to get the f..k away from this EU lark..its WORSE than communism!

  • polistra24

    More importantly, it will bring a new Golden Age for smugglers and gangsters. This is the goal of every government decision. More money for at least one Mafia. The only difference among governments and parties is which Mafia gets preference.

  • Amy Swanson

    So we will advertize smoking n give ppl cancer but won’t help ppl quit well done to the world.

    • Zarniwoop

      Smoking is no longer allowed to be advertised

  • SomeoneSomeplace

    Public Health England KNOWS what they are doing, in fact, there is even an article in THIS paper that states people in the UK are living longer lives, on average, 5+ YEARS!!! I commend them for their decision!!! Their citizens are feeling better because they can BREATHE since they have legally been able to quit smoking the traditional combustible tobacco cigarette! They can exercise, walk more, have less lung and other health problems because tobacco cigarettes cause a LOT of health problems, right down to preventing the healing of their health! See what technology can do!!! The EU “should” follow and do what Public Health England is doing! Unless the EU doesn’t care if their citizens live that extra 5+ years longer. Shame, shame, shame, EU!!! KOODLES to Public Health England! THEY KNOW AND WANT THEIR CITIZENS TO LIVE THE FULLEST EXTENT OF THEIR LIVES!!! Quitting smoking traditional combustible tobacco cigarettes is the NUMBER ONE MOVE that is making this possible!!! HOORAY!!!!!!! Now, EU, think about this! Do you want to be left in the DUST because this SHOWS YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR CITIZENS HEALTH AT ALL! IF YOU DON’T CARE ABOUT YOUR CITIZENS, then keep up what you are doing. If you want to look even better and look like you truly DO CARE ABOUT YOUR CITIZENS, THEN ACCEPT THE ELECTRONIC CIGARETTE SO PEOPLE “CAN” QUIT SMOKING THE ‘CANCER STICKS’! Sorry, I meant so the citizens of the EU can quit smoking the traditional combustible tobacco cigarette! HOORAY TO PUBLIC HEALTH ENGLAND!!! “THEY” KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING!! Imagine the PRIDE their citizens have knowing their government is backing them!!!

  • SomeoneSomeplace

    There HAS TO BE something WE, the people can do to FIGHT BACK! Remember the Boston Tea Party? It MUST be drastic, like that. We just have to figure out what WE, THE PEOPLE IN THE WORLD, will do to fight back! It’s OUR PREROGATIVE! ENOUGH of stomping on us little guys!!!

    • Steve Bell

      You could make a start by leaving the caps lock button alone. There’s nothing more off putting than someone WHO randomly CAPITALISES every OTHER word. It MAKES me think THEY have a LOW IQ.

  • Mike Lindahl

    Its simply the Enormous tobacco lobbiest with unequaled deep pockets buying off scientist (and thier phony findings) and politicians as this much healthier alternative is hurting thier cigarette sales.

  • We REALLY MUST LEAVE this disgusting organisation as soon as possible. For me, the fact that I have virtually no input into the making of the laws that govern me is the crux of it all. Our elected government is told time after time to knuckle under to rules that they heartily disapprove of and which are fundamentally against the interests of the United Kingdom. How can that be right? How can we persist in pretending that we live in a democracy? Vaping products are just one of many matters that we don’t need input into from Brussels.

    • Steve Bell

      So how are you liking it now? We’ve voted to leave and we’re still getting hammered and will be for long after article 50 is triggered. It will take years to get out from under this legislation, and even then we’ve got to hope MP’s reverse it. Still feeling anti-smoking? Cos I’m sat here surrounded by now illegal vaping gear whilst chuffing on a fag. Next week I’m committing suicide. Care to join me? No of course you dont, you’re too busy trying to prolong your life under these arseholes. Like I said earlier, good luck with it.

      • You seem to be in a disturbed and self destructive state. Give up the fatal habits and realise on the other matter, that we need no long winded divorce from the robbing EU criminals, all we need do is declare article fifty and say, ‘We’re leaving and we will negotiate nothing. If YOU impose any trade barriers, or tariffs, we will ban all your goods from our shores.’ My view is that since the Germans alone sell us about £60Bn worth of cars, let alone all the other stuff, they will stop their nonsense about us paying £60bn as a divorce settlement.

  • Last few lines of ‘A Counterblaste to Tobacco’ by King James 1st of England:

    “Moreover, which is a great iniquitie, and against all humanitie, the
    husband shall not bee ashamed, to reduce thereby his delicate,
    wholesome, and cleane complexioned wife, to that extremitie, that
    either shee must also corrupt her sweete breath therewith, or else
    resolve to live in a perpetuall stinking torment.

    Have you not reason then to bee ashamed, and to forbeare this filthie
    noveltie, so basely grounded, so foolishly received and so grossely
    mistaken in the right use thereof? In your abuse thereof sinning
    against God, harming your selves both in persons and goods, and raking
    also thereby the markes and notes of vanitie upon you: by the custome
    thereof making your selves to be wondered at by all forraine civil
    Nations, and by all strangers that come among you, to be scorned and
    contemned. A custome lothsome to the eye, hatefull to the Nose,
    harmefull to the braine, dangerous to the Lungs, and in the blacke
    stinking fume thereof, neerest resembling the horrible Stigian smoke
    of the pit that is bottomelesse.”

  • Chris Emmins

    just vote to leave the EU vapers hold enough votes!

  • BD5 DAVE

    WE ARE FUCKED LETS LEAVE THE EU

  • BahnStormer

    Interesting… so they’re pushing people away from a wide, competitive market of e-liquids and back to the tobacco companies…. I wonder who sponsored this piece of legislation?!?