EU Referendum

Showing posts with label House of Lords. Show all posts

commission[i-commission]
Never mind, said Lord Willoughby de Broke, whether the Commission is doing the right thing or the wrong in meddling with the control of our banks (the wrong, as it happens), concentrate on whether the action is legal. On Tuesday he asked Her Majesty's Government

what assessment they have made of the legality of the European Commission’s decisions on the future of banks in the United Kingdom owned or partly owned by the Government, in the context of the expiry of the present Commission’s term of office on 31 October.

Speaking on behalf of said Government, Lord Davies of Oldham explained in a kindly fashion:

My Lords, the Commission may act in a caretaker capacity after the expiry of its mandate on 31 October to protect the interests of the EU, to fulfill its obligations under the treaty and to ensure the continuity of public service. The Government have agreed packages of measures in principle with Commissioner Kroes in respect of the restructuring of Lloyds Banking Group and the Royal Bank of Scotland. These are now subject to state aid approval by the college of Commissioners.

In parenthesis let me note that there was very little mention of Commissioner Nellie Kroes in all the announcements about the restructuring of those state-owned banks. Could it be that the aforementioned Government does not like people to know that its decisions are taken at the behest and direct instruction from some Commissar or other in Brussels, who no longer has the right to give those instructions?

Lord Willoughby de Broke chose to disagree with the Noble Minister:

My Lords, while I am grateful to the Minister for that reply, I am afraid that I am not satisfied by it. Nowhere does the treaty, under any article for the reappointment of the Commission, allow for reappointment in a caretaker capacity; there is simply no legal basis in the treaty for that. It therefore follows that, in all its actions since 31 October, the Commission has been acting beyond its powers. That includes the restrictions that have been put on the Royal Bank of Scotland in relation to the payment of dividends, for example, which disadvantages shareholders and pension funds. Can the noble Lord confirm that the Commission has not been legally reappointed according to the procedures laid down in the treaties and that, therefore, its actions are ultra vires?

The Noble Minister then informed the House that the Commission need not be legally reappointed and could just carry on in a caretaking capacity, presumably indefinitely. Lord Kinnock agreed with him, citing Article 216 though Lord Willoughby de Broke suggested that the Welsh Windbag (referred to somewhat more politely in Hansard) was not entirely accurate.

Well, let us see. Actually, I think the Noble Lord Kinnock meant Article 215 of the Consolidated Treaties (as the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force).

ARTICLE 215

Apart from normal replacement, or death, the duties of a Member of the Commission shall end when he resigns or is compulsorily retired.

A vacancy caused by resignation, compulsory retirement or death shall be filled for the remainder of the Member's term of office by a new Member appointed by the Council, acting by a qualified majority. The Council may, acting unanimously, decide that such a vacancy need not be filled.

In the event of resignation, compulsory retirement or death, the President shall be replaced for the remainder of his term of office. The procedure laid down in Article 214(2) shall be applicable for the replacement of the President.

Save in the case of compulsory retirement under Article 216, Members of the Commission shall remain in office until they have been replaced or until the Council has decided that the vacancy need not be filled, as provided for in the second paragraph of this Article.

According to Lord Kinnock this implies that the whole Commission "stays in office unless and until a replacement is appointed through due process, and that consequently the decisions taken by the Commission since 31 October are completely within the law".

I don't think that is what this Article says but the fact that it can be interpreted that way by ex-Commissioners who do not have to declare their pecuniary interests, tells one a great deal about the EU's contempt for its own legal structure.

As of October 31 there is no Commission as a new one has not been appointed. That needs to be remembered.

COMMENT THREAD

Time to leave Waziristan, at least temporarily (and yes, since you ask, I do know where it is). Here are a few links of interest.

The House of Lords has published a report on Codecision and national parliamentary scrutiny and full of interesting things it is, too. Before I write about it in detail I wish to call attention to a couple of extremely useful if bewildering flow-charts. The first shows the process of Codecision (between the Council and the European Parliament). That is, let us not forget, the process whereby legislation that is legally binding for this country is agreed on.

The second shows the complications of trying to get information to conduct a scrutiny of the process. Scrutiny is not legislation; all it does, if the procedure is properly adhered to, which it very rarely is, is to turn Parliament into another lobbying group. They are both worth close study.

In the meantime, the news is that members of the Toy Parliament will be losing their automatic right to a photographic pass in the Westminster Parliament, the institution they have done so much damage to. That is not why they are losing that right; the reason is that nobody had told Harriet Harman and her chums that you cannot take passes away from one group of MEPs unless you do it to all. Developments on this score should be interesting.

Today's Daily Telegraph has its usual crop of variable letters on the subject of the Conservative Party and that referendum that is disappearing into the far horizon. Most of them are variations on the same old themes; the one that gets to the core of the matter is by Lord Willoughby de Broke, the other UKIP peer (who is not standing for the leadership).

SIR – Charles Moore (Comment, October 3) says that he does not support Ukip because "only the big, old parties contain the DNA to govern".

Whichever party forms the next government here will not "govern". Most of our national law is now made in Brussels, where Britain has 8 per cent of the vote.

Do we want to go on being governed by the unelected and unsackable Brussels bureaucracy with its endless flood of suffocating law? Do we want to go on seeing a largely discredited Parliament acting simply as a rubber stamp for EU legislation?

Our parliamentary democracy worked when our elected representatives made our laws. The only way now to restore that democracy is to give the people of Britain the power of binding local and national referendums, as in Switzerland.

I have introduced a Bill in the Lords to give them that power. I look forward to the howls of protest from "the big, old parties".

Lord Willoughby de Broke

We are all looking forward to those entirely predictable howls of protest from "the big, old parties" and from all soi-disant experts on the British Constitution.

COMMENT THREAD

City_of_London_badge[i-City_of_London_badge]When the City suffers the rest of the country will suffer, as well. Those much derided bankers, traders and hedge fund managers bring in a lot of money. And they do not like what is coming from the British government and, especially, the European Union.

The Wall Street Journal has now noted what has been discussed in various corridors for some time: the hedge funds are beginning to move to Switzerland. (And no, the Swiss are not stupid enough to make their lives difficult.)

Lawyers estimate hedge funds managing close to $15 billion have moved to Switzerland in the past year, with more possibly to come. David Butler, founder of professional-services firm Kinetic Partners, said his company had advised 23 hedge funds on leaving the U.K. in the 15 months to April. An additional 15 are close to quitting the U.K., he said.

As it happens, this subject has been raised in the House of Lords a couple of times by Lord Pearson of Rannoch.

On July 2 he asked a question in the Chamber:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of how the powers granted to the new European Union financial institutions will develop in future; and whether they will affect the independence of the United Kingdom and its financial institutions.

The response was, unsurprisingly, rather bland so the Noble Lord followed up with two supplementary questions that the rules allow, one of which he specifically asked:

Secondly, have Her Majesty’s Government made their own assessment of the damage to our economy caused by firms leaving the City in droves, which they are already starting to do?

Pshaw, said the Noble Minister, Lord Myners.

I am unaware of firms leaving the City of London in droves—quite the opposite. The City of London is continuing to grow in global significance, as underlined by the recent Bischoff report.

Well, Lord Pearson was not going to leave matters there and, unlike his former party, he did something about it. On July 20, he tackled the subject again in a Written Question that asked

Her Majesty's Government further to the answer by Lord Myners on 2 July (Official Report, House of Lords, col. 329) saying that firms are not leaving the City of London, whether they discussed with the Swiss authorities the number of firms leaving the City of London for Switzerland.

HMG was having none of it. Well, to be quite precise, HMG was not going to admit either to ignorance or to panic.

Treasury Ministers and officials have discussions with a wide variety of organisations in the public and private sectors as part of the process of policy development and delivery. As was the case with previous Administrations, it is not the Government's practice to provide details of all such discussions.

I trust Lord Myners read the WSJ article with his toast and marmalade this morning.

COMMENT THREAD

In response to Lord Stoddart's written question about the euro and a possible referendum, HMG said:

The Government's policy on membership of the single currency remains unchanged. As stated by the previous Chancellor in October 1997, “whenever this issue arises, under this Government there will be a referendum. Government, Parliament and the people must all agree”.

Not sure what those last four words mean. The people are unlikely all to agree. So, if there is merely a sizeable majority, will there be another referendum in order to achieve a unanimity? And what happens if HMG decides that the euro is a very different euro from the original?

glenys-kinnock[i-glenys-kinnock]There she was, our Glenys, in her place as Minister for Europe, answering or, rather avoiding, questions about the second Irish referendum as to the manner born. Apart from being economical with the truth about the Irish government not being bullied or pressurized into that second referendum, she gave no explanation at all as to why it is needed. After all, the people of Ireland have spoken.

Another point she omitted to explain, despite being asked by the Lord Pearson of Rannoch is what happens if there is no Accession Treaty either with Croatia or Iceland, the latter country not having applied for membership yet. Or if there is a treaty in the near future, how near is it and what happens to those "legal guarantees" in the meantime?

No doubt, the Baroness Kinnock (any sign of Master Kinnock following mummy and daddy into the House of Lords?) intends to go on as she has started.

COMMENT THREAD

Stoddart+01[i-Stoddart+01]... the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.

We all know that famous phrase if not from personal experience then from countless TV shows. There is, however, one group of people who seems unaware of it and that is Her Majesty’s Ministers and their advisers.

On Thursday there was a reply to a Written Question put down by Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The question was interesting in that it implied (oh heck, said quite clearly) that a previous reply had been economical with the truth, a phrase that Ministers and their advisers know very well, indeed.

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Malloch-Brown on 4 June (WA 107), why he did not mention that European Union regulations have direct effect in the United Kingdom; and whether, in the light of the United Kingdom's results in the European Parliamentary elections, they will reconsider their decision not to undertake research into the proportion of United Kingdom legislation originating in the European Union.

Right, let's go back to that original question and the answer to it by Lord Malloch-Brown, formerly best friend of George Soros as well as bag-carrier to ex-SecGen Kofi Annan.

First the question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Malloch-Brown on 18 May (WA 253), (a) what would be the likely cost of research into the proportion of United Kingdom legislation originating in the European Union; and (b) what assessment they have made of the figure of 75 per cent as the proportion quoted by some political parties and organisations and by The Independent on 19 May (page 27).

And the answer?

The Government have not assessed the likely cost of research into this issue. The Government believe that any expenditure would be disproportionate given the limited purpose such figures would serve.

The Government do not believe that the figure of 75 percent is accurate. A House of Commons Library analysis of the effects of EU legislation on British law between 1998 and 2005 gave a figure of just 9.1 per cent.

Interesting. So finding out and letting the electorate know what proportion of the legislation comes from the EU and cannot be thrown out (if, indeed, it is read) by the elected members of the House of Commons would serve a limited purpose, according to HMG. Is that because who legislates and whether that is controlled by the electorate are topics that are of no importance in a democracy?

Now we can understand why Lord Stoddart has decided to ask the most recent question. It is clear that the House of Common Library analysis dealt only with Directives that do require parliamentary legislation though this could be secondary, put through by Statutory Instruments. What of those Regulations that are directly applicable. Well, here is Lord Brett's reply on behalf of HMG:

The Answer given by my noble friend the Minister for Africa, Asia and the UN, Lord Malloch-Brown, did not mention EC regulations as the Question did not ask about the legal effect of specific Community instruments. It has always been clear that EC regulations are directly applicable in the UK. The Government reaffirm the Answer to the previous Question.

The question asked about the proportion of legislation that comes from the EU. That must include, surely, legislation that is directly applicable and of which Parliament knows nothing. To whom exactly has it "always been clear that EC regulations are directly applicable in the UK"? HMG, its Ministers, their advisers and members of Parliament with very few exceptions in the House of Lords tend not to mention this fact. Perhaps, they do not always know themselves?

COMMENT THREAD

On Tuesday Lord Foulkes of Cumnock, another of the local council - House of Commons - House of Lords brigade, not to mention being a member of the Scottish Assembly as well, asked HMG the following question:

What is their forecast of the revenue lost to HM Treasury through the use of the Channel Islands for avoiding the payment of United Kingdom tax.

The debate that went on for about seven minutes was quite curious in that practically everything the question and immediate response to it implied, was incorrect.

All we managed to gather is that HMG, together with other states and governments that is anxious to destroy economic activity by extracting as much tax as they can manage, are trying to think of all sorts of schemes whereby "tax havens" will be shut down, even if that will mean the places in question going bankrupt and money being laundered some other way. For sure as eggs is eggs, the rich will find a method of keeping their spondulikins out of the various politicians' hands and who can blame them.

What was not mentioned was that there might actually be another solution to the problem and that is lower taxation. That, on the other hand, would undermine the assumption on which much of the debate was conducted: that, somehow, HMG (or any other government) has an undeniable right to people's earnings to do whatever they see fit to do with it.

Another unmentioned aspect was the curious fact that members of what is known as "Another Place", to wit the House of Commons, had, at various times, voted themselves substantial salary increases, which they called expenses in order not to pay taxes on them. Behaviour of that kind would be frowned upon if indulged in by the great unwashed.

There are, of course, no salaries except for Ministers, in the House of Lords, and the expenses are minimal. Lord Foulkes, one assumes, is paid as Member of the Scottish Parliament. For all of that, his was one of the few names in the Upper House that cropped up in the course of the recent unpleasantness, as Wikipedia unkindly mentions:

In 2008, Foulkes had been criticised for his expenses claims, which included around £45,000 over a period of two years for overnight subsistence to stay in a flat he had inherited. Between April 2007 and March 2008, Foulkes claimed £54,527 in expenses from the House of Lords.[13][1]

The words houses, glass and stones spring to mind.

COMMENT THREAD

From the Lords Hansard a Written Question by Lord Pearson of Rannoch and HMG's response:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the European Union's Court of Auditors has been able to ratify the European Union's accounts for the past 14 years; and, if not, why the European Union is permitted to propose regulation for the City of London. [HL4086]

The Financial Services Secretary to the Treasury (Lord Myners): The European Court of Auditors (ECA) has regularly given a positive statement of assurance on the reliability of the EC accounts. The UK Government are pleased that, for the first time, the ECA's report on the 2007 EC Budget gives an unqualified positive statement of assurance on these accounts.

It is disappointing that for the 14th year in succession the ECA was unable to give a positive opinion on the legality and regularity of the underlying transactions for the majority of EC Budget expenditure. Nevertheless, it is encouraging that the percentage of Budget expenditure that has been given a positive opinion has been increasing, currently 40 per cent, up from 35 per cent in 2005 and only 6 per cent in 2003.

Under the treaty the Commission proposes draft legislation for the single market in financial services which applies to the City and financial institutions across Europe.

I trust that makes everyone a great deal happier.

COMMENT THREAD

During a Starred Question in the House of Lords yesterday the Noble Minister, the Lord Malloch-Brown admitted to being stumped not once but twice. Luckily his supporters, Lord Dykes (yes, him again) and Baroness Ludford (yes, her again) came to his rescue.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked

Her Majesty’s Government whether they have commissioned a recent survey of the attitudes of United Kingdom citizens to the European Union; and, if so, whether they will publish the results.

The answer is that they have not commissioned anything of the kind and have no intention of doing so; and if they did commission a survey they would never publish its results because they are unlikely to show what Lord Malloch-Brown and his cohorts would like us to think.

Then again, the FCO has been kind of busy:

My Lords, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office has recently commissioned some focus group work which does not provide any quantitative results like a survey but has helped us better understand people’s level of knowledge about the EU and the types of EU activity they were interested in. We will publish information from the focus groups on the FCO website.

Lord Stoddart mentioned one or two recent poll results but these were pooh-poohed by the Noble Minister who was later to be stumped by questions about supply of milk to schools and, much more importantly, since that milk supply is hardly needed these days, labelling of food.

Lord Dykes thought the results were absolutely wonderful as so many people were still in favour of the project despite the fact that the government has not made a particularly good case for it. In particular the government has not reminded people that:

There are 1 million British companies now in the EU doing business; nearly 2 million Brits living in other EU countries, including Spain; 3.5 million jobs directly linked to membership of the EU; and 50 million individual journeys to EU countries, mostly on low-cost airlines, were taken last year. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Stoddart, is independent Labour but why is he so nervous and old-fashioned?

Setting aside the usual personal insults, and for Lord Dykes there can be no greater insult than "independent", one wonders where the noble peer has been all this time if he has not noticed the government trotting out those old canards endlessly.

Baroness Ludford informed the House that as an MEP she was fully aware of the possibility of her being voted out, though if she is top of the list in her region, that seems extremely unlikely. What she forgot to explain was how that made any difference, EU legislation not being dependent on either elections to the Toy Parliament or the choice of a new Commission. Baroness Ludford does not seem to have taken in anything Gisela Stuart said yesterday.

Good points were made by Lords Pearson of Rannoch, Howell of Guildford and Tebbit. A very stupid point was made by the Barness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde. So what else is new?

Yesterday afternoon there was an interesting exchange in the House of Lords about the EU budget. Lord Campbell of Alloway, who is a semi-sceptic asked

Her Majesty's Government what is the justification for the projected increase in the United Kingdom's net contribution to the European Community Budget to £6.5 billion in 2010-11.

Not an unreasonable question at a time of financial difficulties (not that the government has noticed that, spending money, as it does, in resemblance of the proverbial drunken sailor).

The response by Lord Davies of Oldham was the usual one - we really do not like the system and we really would like to rectify matters but as we can't we shall just have to keep handing the money over. I wonder if all those people who promise such reforms ever bother to read these replies and ever ask themselves why the situation is as it is. (Yes, Open Europe, Libertas and Taxpayers' Alliance, I am referring to you.)

When he was pressed by Lord Campbell, Lord Davies became so snappy and rude that their lordships expressed their displeasure, as they do without needing a Speaker. He then proceeded to snarl:

My Lords, the House will appreciate that, if such a solution were available, all—or the majority of—European states would follow the strategy. However, the issues are more complex because the problems with accounting in the European budget are largely the fault of expenditure that is partly controlled by the member states; so it will not do to say that the issue relates directly to the European Commission or any other institution. Member states, too, must improve their standards of accountancy and effectiveness, which is exactly what the United Kingdom has been doing.

That last sentence is questionable in view of the fact that statistics have become meaningless under this government, what with all the shifting of goalposts and chaning of parameters.

The question of enlargement was ignored and the subject of the surrendered part of the rebate, raised by Lord Waddington, pooh-poohed. Then Lord Lea of Crondall got to what his side see as the crux of the matter:

My Lords, is it not the case that the thesis, "We want our money back", is demeaning for a country in our position in the world after the G20 and all the commitments that we have entered into? The Conservative Party policy, "We want our money back", would mean that there would be no EU, which is what the Conservatives are driving at.

Well, actually, there is nothing demeaning in a country's representatives taking good care of its money, however rich that country might be. Bribing your way to respect, as Lord Lea seems to think we should be doing. is far more demeaning as well as counterproductive. Which politician was respected more, Margaret Thatcher who got the rebate or Tony Blair who gave it away?

Please note, however, the bogeyman produced there. We must not push too hard for any kind of reform or proper accounting because the net result of that will be that there would be no EU. Oh the horror of it!

First it was Conservative MP Peter Bone, who informed the organization that he is a supporter but does not want to be a member. His name, therefore, did not appear in the list we put up before.

Now comes news of another supporter-but-not-member. This time it is a member of the Upper House, Lord Maginnis of Drumglass, formerly the UUP MP Kenneth Maginnis.

All we are doing is recording these events. We couldn't possibly comment.

Better+off[i-Better+off]In the wake of that BBC poll that showed 55 per cent of this country's population would like to see us out of the European Union and in the midst of a huge financial crisis (made far worse by our own government as well as the EU, to be absolutely fair) Better Off Out is being relaunched as a cross-party group in both Houses.

The website gives the full press release that had, actually, been postponed till today, as well as some other information about the group. The aim is to co-ordinate a parliamentary campaign of questions, both oral and written and, whenever possible, debates, thus raising political and public awareness of the EU and its dire influence on this country.

Needless to say, this blog stands with the group and is ready to assist its work in every way possible. Come to think of it, we have been doing that for the last five years, anyway.

The group is chaired by Lord Vinson and the administrative work will be done (D. V.) from the office of Philip Davies MP. Here is the list of members:

Douglas Carswell MP, Baroness Cox, Philip Davies MP, Nigel Dodds MP, Jeffrey Donaldson MP, Philip Hollobone MP, Baroness Knight of Collingtree DBE, The Earl of Liverpool, William McCrea MP, Dr. Ian Paisley MP, Lord Maginnis of Drunglass, Lord Mancroft, Austin Mitchell MP, Lord Monson, Lord Moran KCMG, Lord Palmer, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, Lord Quinton FBA, Iris Robinson MP, Peter Robinson MP, The Earl of Shrewsbury and Waterford DL, David Simpson MP, Dr. Bob Spink MP, Lord Stevens of Ludgate, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, Lord Swinfen, The Rt. Hon. The Lord Tebbit, Lord Tombs, Lord Vinson LVO DL (Chairman), Lord Willoughby de Broke, Sammy Wilson MP, Ann Winterton MP, Sir Nicholas Winterton MP

Some of the names are well known in the fight, some not so much. Unsurprisingly, there are more peers than MPs. Even less surprisingly, among the MPs the Democratic Unionists predominate. So far as I can make out, there is one Labour MP, Austin Mitchell and five Conservatives: Douglas Carswell, Philip Davies, Philip Hollobone, Ann Winterton and Sir Nicholas Winterton.

Whatever happened to the likes of John Redwood, he who must not be criticized?

COMMENT THREAD

House_of_Lords+01[i-House_of_Lords+01]There were two EU related Starred Questions in the House of Lords on Tuesday and they elicited interesting responses. The first was asked by Lord Campbell of Alloway:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether, as the United Kingdom’s net contribution to the European Community budget is projected to rise from £2 billion in 2008-09 to £6.5 billion in 2010-11, they will withhold a proportion pending a statement of assurance on the accounts by the Court of Auditors.

Not an unreasonable sentiment, one would say. After all, how else can we exercise that famed influence, which we shall lose if we leave the wretched organization, if not by withholding money until the accounts start being even half-way acceptable.

One would be wrong. It seems that we are duty bound to keep sending huge amounts of money to the EU while they are not duty bound to try to make the best use of it and keep accounts that would be passed by the Court of Auditors.

My Lords, the answer is no. The United Kingdom is required to make its contributions under obligations imposed by the treaties. The European Communities Act, and Section 2 in particular, gives effect within the UK to Community law. Inability to gain clearance on the majority of EU expenditure is unacceptable, and the Government will continue to engage with European institutions over these issues and to look for member states taking greater responsibility for the EU funds that they manage.

Unacceptable or otherwise, there is nothing we can or should do about it. How nice. Even nicer is the fact that the situation is improving all the time as Lord Davies of Oldham, speaking for HMG explained in a kindly fashion:

However, as recently as 2003 only 6 percent of the accounts were given a positive opinion by the auditors and last year it was up to 40 percent, so there is improvement.

What are we worrying about? Next time a private company has problems with the dreaded audit it can simply point out that in a few years a considerably higher proportion of the budget (though less than half) has been given a positive opinion. I wonder how that will go down.

Lord Tomlinson suggested that this was a question of statistical errors and Lord Newby intimated that this is not time to go in for saber-rattling. As far as the Lib-Dims are concerned no time is a good time unless we are rattling that saber against the United States or, failing that, Israel. The EU? Pshaw.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch raised the problem of the "former chief accountant, Marta Andreasen, who was sacked simply because she refused to sign off its fraudulent accounts and who has since been treated disgracefully".

This was dismissed as unworthy of consideration.

My Lords, I think that that is a matter of opinion. The noble Lord has articulated that position for several years. The response of the European Community and the British Government to that position is that his views are, at the very least, somewhat contestable.

Except that it is never contested. At best Lord Pearson and his colleagues are swatted aside; at worst they are abused in a very unpleasant fashion.

The other Starred Question was asked by Lord Dykes of whom we have written before. To say he is a europhiliac is to credit him with an ability to think that he shows no obvious sign of.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what assessment they have made of the effect of the resignation of the Government of the Czech Republic on decision-making in the European Union under the Czech Presidency.

The answer is that there can be no effect whatsoever as the acting government that resembles the one that had resigned to a surprising degree will carry on and, in any case, the country has a president. Indeed, that is what his lordship was told by Lord Davies of Oldham who had clearly drawn the short straw that day.

My Lords, the Government of the Czech Republic continue as a "Government in Resignation", and Ministers and officials will continue to carry out their duties in full as EU presidency.

Indeed, Lord Dykes's follow-up question in which he agree with the assessment makes one wonder why he bothered to ask something as stupid as that. One can only assume that he wanted to have a little dig at President Klaus, a man in every way more eminent than Lord Dykes himself.

My Lords, allowing for the occasional vagaries of President Klaus, does the Minister agree with the comment on page 11 of today's Financial Times that this is a problem more in Prague than in Brussels because of the inherent continuity in the troika system and the maintenance of the agendas running continuously over the presidency period?

He was, I am glad to say, reprimanded by Lord Lawson:

My Lords, will the noble Lord not reflect on his commendation of what his noble friend said a moment ago in his attack on President Klaus? He is the president of a friendly country, a fellow member of the European Union and a man of very considerable distinction who remains unaffected by the resignation of the Czech Government.

Lord Dykes sounds more and more like a sniggering schoolboy of about 13 who thinks funny little comments about adults behind one’s hand are super-intelligent. Most of us grow out of that. Others go into politics and fail in that, too.

Meanwhile the European Union Committee in the House of Lords produced its Seventh Report, which is not of earth-shaking importance but raises an interesting conundrum.

It deals with the problems caused by the fact that Protocol No. 4 in the existing Treaty establishing a European Community gives the UK a supposedly flexible position with regards to EC measures on visas, asylum and immigration. The opt-in was considered to be an example of masterful British negotiation.

Unfortunately, matters never rest in one place. As the Committee points out:

No thought seems to have been given when the Protocol was drafted to what the situation might be if a Title IV measure came to be amended by further legislation, inevitably also made under Title IV and so subject to a United Kingdom opt-in. Both measures would be binding on 24 of the Member States. [Denmark and Ireland are in the same position.] No problem would arise if the United Kingdom opted in to both, or neither. But what if the United Kingdom had opted in to the first, but did not wish to opt in to the second? Or, a fortiori, if it had not opted in to the first, but wished to opt in to the second?

The result as the not very long report shows is something of a mess with nobody knowing quite what does and what does not apply to the UK. Undoubtedly, the solution proposed will be for full participation in all the Title IV measures. There is, however, another solution and it is hereby respectfully suggested.

How about legislating for ourselves with regard to international agreements we sign as fully sovereign states? Could that dispense with this appalling mess of never knowing what is and what is not British law and how it came to be in existence? Because, if the UK fully participates in Title IV measures there will be a great deal of legislation to do with issues that, we are told by politicians, matter to people much more than "Europe" and none of that legislation would have gone through Parliament in any discernible fashion.

COMMENT THREAD

Lord_Pearson+01[i-Lord_Pearson+01]One of the most extraordinary aspects of the europhiliac case is that, apparently, it is watertight. There can be no rational arguments against Britain's membership of the European Union or, indeed, further integration of said body.

Yet, as soon as there is a debate, all we get is vicious personal abuse. Take Lord Dykes, for instance. (Well, OK, I'll take Lord Dykes.) For some reason the man, whose career prior to his entry to the Upper House has been unimpressive, to put it mildly, felt a great urge to intervene in the short debate that followed Lord Pearson of Rannoch’s Starred Question yesterday afternoon.

It was not a particularly complicated question. Lord Malloch-Brown, former SecGen Annan’s bag carrier, should have coped with it.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their response to the analysis in The Great European Rip-off, published by the TaxPayers' Alliance, which maintains that United Kingdom membership of the European Union incurs an equivalent cost for each United Kingdom citizen of £2,000 per annum.

Sadly, this seemed too difficult for his lordship and he blathered about the benefits far outweighing the costs, which is, presumably, why HMG has never dared to do a cost/benefit analysis.

The figure of £2,000 cited by the TaxPayers’ Alliance seems to be largely based on estimates of the costs to the UK economy of regulation at the EU level, but that is not even half the story. Single market regulation has opened markets across Europe, and 3.5 million British jobs are linked to exports to the EU—and the benefits go still wider. The security of UK citizens is enhanced by co-operation with EU partners on terrorism, illegal migration and organised crime.

Yawn and double yawn. Those single market regulations may or may not have opened markets across Europe but they also apply to the vast majority of British business who do not trade with other European countries. And that market could have been opened by mere trade agreements.

As for those jobs – oh dear, could anyone with a spark of intelligence really use that argument any more? No, Lord Malloch-Brown, the jobs will not disappear if we are out of the EU because we shall go on trading with other EU countries, if that is what we want to do or we shall trade with other countries, which might be more advantageous. Duh!

And I sincerely hope that we co-operate with non-EU countries on terrorism, illegal migration and organised crime, not that the EU structures, which is what that body is interested in, have been particularly useful on, say, illegal migration.

After a bit of toing and froing about whether those figures by the Taxpayers' Alliance are exaggerated or not (and it is hard to tell as HMG will not produce a study of its own) we get Lord Dykes's notable contribution:

My Lords, does the Minister agree that he does not need to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Pearson? He should be sympathetic because, having wrecked the Conservative Party, Stuart Wheeler is now moving his money to the UKIP. But it does not need it anyway because all the UKIP MEPs charge maximum expenses on a regular basis in Strasbourg and Brussels, which adds up to about £400,000 per Member.

I turn to the TaxPayers' Alliance. Does not its innocent-sounding title hide a rather sinister truth? Five years old now, it was formed by three or four dotty, extreme right-wing Conservatives who make the neo-cons in America look very moderate—Minford, Minogue and all the rest of them—and is now advocating deep hatred on a day-by-day basis; as Polly Toynbee said in the Guardian on 9 February, "insidious poison". Will the Minister treat this report with the contempt it deserves?

Well, if Polly Toynbee, that great sage of political thought, has said so, we may as well all pack up. I had better remove my copies of Plato's, Hobbes's, Locke's John Stuart Mill's, Edmund Burke's and assorted others' works and start collecting la Toynbee's efforts. What more can one need in life?

Setting aside the fact that Lord Dykes, in common with most British politicians and journalists has not the faintest idea of who the neo-cons are (they are not simply more conservative than the others) let us look at the rest of that spectacularly nasty outburst.

"Minford, Minogue and all the rest of them", presumably, refers to the highly regarded economist Professor Patrick Minford and the leading political philosopher (sans blague), Professor Kenneth Minogue. Remind me again, what has Lord Dykes achieved in his life?

One wonders why producing information about the amount of taxpayers' money that is wasted and mis-spent by our bloated officialdom is to be described as "advocating deep hatred on a day-by-day basis". This tells you something very interesting about the mentality of Lord Dykes, Polly Toynbee and the rest of that gang.

COMMENT THREAD

Lord_Ahmed[i-Lord_Ahmed]Two recent cases of fatal accidents in which the perpetrator had been sending and receiving texts prior to crashing into a stationary car and killing its driver have come to notice. One was that of the waitress, Philippa Curtis who killed Victoria McBryde on the A40 near Wheatley in Oxfordshire. She was given 21 months in prison and was banned from driving for three years.

The judge used suitably tough language even though Ms Curtis sounded shattered by her experience (as well she might be):

Judge Julian Hall said it had been "folly and madness" to use a phone while driving and it had been "disastrous" for Curtis, Ms McBryde and her family.

Ms McBryde's family are campaigning for tougher penalties for people who use mobile phones particularly to send and receive text messages (try doing that while keeping your eye on the road).

Let's not get overexcited. The second case concerns that pillar of the Establishment, Lord Ahmed, last heard of strenuously trying to prevent the Dutch politician Geert Wilders from making his case in the House of Lords and succeeding with the help of our own special idiot of a Home Secretary.

Incidentally, Lord Ahmed sees nothing wrong with him inviting controversial speakers to the House, as David Pryce-Jones points out on his blog.

Two years ago, Lord Ahmed invited Mahmoud Abu Rideh, a Palestinian previously detained on suspicion of fundraising for groups associated with al-Qaeda, into the House of Lords. It was his parliamentary duty, he told critics, to listen to what Abu Rideh had to say.

He has also hosted a book launch for a well-known anti-Semitic writer, Israel Shamir also known as Jöran Jermas. But freedom of speech goes only so far with the noble peer and in this he seems to be supported by those brave souls in the Home Office.

However, the latest news is that Lord Ahmed has finally been sentenced for his dangerous driving during which he sent and received text messages and at the end of which he killed a man. Precisely the same sort of behaviour that earned Ms Curtis 21 months in prison.

So, if a barmaid gets 21 months and a three-year driving ban, a peer of the realm who is much in the public eye and ought to be an example to many people, not least Muslim young men, gets ... 12 weeks.

Well, you see, he had finished texting a little while before the accident, though, as the judge pointed out, he had actually been conducting a long conversation with a journalist via his mobile phone's texting facility (or possibly his Blackberry but that hardly matters). And anyway the chap who was killed had been drinking. Well, yes, the vehicle was stationary but ... ah well, you know, these things do happen and we can't have the first Muslim peer going to gaol for a long time and possibly losing his peerage.

Actually, he is not going to prison for even that long as he will serve half the sentence on licence. Well, one wouldn't want to inconvenience his lordship too much, would one. He has also been banned from driving for a year and ordered to pay £500 of prosecution costs. His solicitor seems to think this is all a terrible injustice.

Outside court Lord Ahmed's solicitor, Steve Smith, said he thought his client had been used as a "scapegoat" by those attempting to drive home the message about not using a mobile phone while at the wheel.

He said he was launching an immediate appeal against the sentence.

He said: "I've been with him. He's very philosophical. He's approaching it with great dignity."

Goodness, I am so glad that he is exhibiting great dignity in the face of the terrible injustice of a six-week gaol sentence for killing a man through careless and dangerous driving.

COMMENT THREAD

If anybody is interested in reading real ministerial waffle, they are welcome to have a look at the short debate that followed a Private Notice Question in the House of Lords on February 12.

The Question:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what is their justification for denying Mr Geert Wilders entry into the United Kingdom.

was put down by Lord Taverne, not one of the usual suspects and, indeed, most of those who took part in the debate were not that either. I did rather like the beginning of Lord Pearson’s intervention:

I suggest to the Minister—perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong—that a man is innocent until he is proved guilty.

The Minister did not reply to that, or to Lord Pearson’s further point that none of this would have happened if Mr Wilders had suggested the banning of the Bible, or to any of the various points made by the noble lords and ladies. His excuses were various: he could not respond on hypothetical point; he did not know how the matter came to the attention of the Home Office (a very good question asked by Lord Peston); he had not had time to be briefed; and, anyway, he really did not know anything that had anything to do with the subject.

So there we are. Now we know.

Geert_Wilders+01[i-Geert_Wilders+01]It is no longer just the Dutch; we, too, have a problem. Actually, there is nothing new about lack of freedom of speech in this country. What do you think those draconian libel laws are for? The latest development is going a little further as well as, we suspect, breaking EU rules.

This afternoon I was told that the meeting with Geert Wilders, the Dutch parliamentarian and general trouble-maker, in the House of Lords was going ahead. It was to be a private meeting at which Mr Wilders was given an opportunity to explain his point of view to invited MPs and Peers, despite the threats made by Lord Ahmed of bringing many thousands of rage-filled Islamists along.

(Lord Ahmed is, incidentally, awaiting sentencing for dangerous driving, to wit causing the death of another motorist as he was texting and receiving messages while speeding along the motorway. If Jack Straw's new rules are brought in, he may lose his peerage, if imprisoned as at least one other driver in similar circumstances has been. Then again, pigs might fly.)

It seems, however, that the Secretary of State for Home Affairs (yes, the wretched Straw Jacqui Smith again) or his minions do not think that members of the House of Lords should have the right to invite people to give them presentations.

As Reuters reports:

A Dutch member of parliament facing prosecution because of his anti-Islam remarks said on Tuesday that Britain had refused him entry to the country as a threat to public security.

Geert Wilders had wanted to show a short film, "Fitna," which accuses the Koran of inciting violence, in the British parliament, but said the British authorities had told him he was excluded from the country.

"The secretary of state (minister) is satisfied that your statements about Muslims and their beliefs, as expressed in your film "Fitna" and elsewhere, would threaten community harmony and therefore public security in the United Kingdom," Wilders told Dutch television a letter he had received from the British government said.

Wilders faces prosecution by an Amsterdam court for inciting hatred and discrimination.

Britain's Home Office (interior ministry) declined to comment on Wilders' exclusion, but a spokeswoman said the government opposed all forms of extremism.

"It will stop those who want to spread extremism, hatred and violent messages in our communities from coming to our country," she said.

Uh-huh! What's the state of play on Abu Hamza a.k.a. Captain Hook? And what of Lord Ahmed who not only goes around causing death of innocent motorists through dangerous driving but threatens to disrupt meetings in the House of Lords through violence? That, of course, is not extremism.

However, the situation can become quite awkward. Mr Wilders has not been found guilty of anything (unlike Lord Ahmed) and is a parliamentarian in another EU member state. Does the Home Office have the right to exclude him from the country?

It seems that the Dutch government is not happy.

Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen said the Dutch government would press Britain to reverse the ban and said he "deeply regretted" that a Dutch lawmaker had been barred access.

By the way, the second invitation to Mr Wilders came from Lord Pearson of Rannoch, whom this blog admires unreservedly for all his work.

Lord Pearson, who invited Wilders to show "Fitna" at the House of Lords on Thursday, said he was "very surprised that the British government should ban a European citizen — and an elected Dutch MP at that — from coming to this country."

He called his government's decision "weak and unacceptable in the extreme."

Pearson said he took exception to some of Wilders' statements but wanted to show his film "precisely to uphold his right to freedom of speech, even if we disagree with what he's saying."

He added that he would do his best to help Wilders to show his film in the UK, despite the ban.

I am putting my money on Lord Pearson. Faites vos jeux, mesdames et messieurs. Rien ne va plus.

UPDATE: Mr Wilders has announced that he will travel to Britain despite the ban. Will he be arrested and deported? Dutch politicians of all stripes remain unhappy, as well they might be.

COMMENT THREAD

John_Bright[i-John_Bright]It is pertinent to ask what position the British parliament, the glory of the British (and English) system occupies in the grand vision of EU legislation. After all, we are told by numerous clowns politicians of different parties that we should vote for them and they will do such things though, naturally, they know not what they are. Nevertheless, the terror of the earth they shall be.

So should we pay any attention to what these bozos political wannabes tell us? Well, curiously enough an answer was found as I was reading the HoL European Union Committee Report that I have mentioned earlier, "Initiation of EU Legislation".

In the section on national parliaments Paragraph 126 says:

126. Do those views of national parliaments have much influence over the development of legislative proposals? Sir Kim Darroch said that reports of the House of Lords, for example, were taken into account by the Government in formulating and developing policy, and thus might indirectly influence the Commission. His colleague, Paul Heardman (Head of European Parliament Section, UKRep), told us that the Reports were well regarded in the European Parliament. (QQ 299, 300) As one voice among many seeking to influence legislation, the direct influence of a national parliament should not be exaggerated, but it may be able to influence the Commission to a degree. The Minister advised that influence on the initiation of legislation would be greater if focussed on multi-annual programmes. (Q 468)

[I have left the references to the specific questions there, in case some of our readers want to follow them up in the document.]

In a couple of previous paragraphs (116 – 119) we had already been told about HMG’s efforts to influence legislation, sometimes successfully, sometimes less so.

What it adds up to is very clear and I, for one, should like to hear some explanation of how they are going to deal with it from some of our politicos and political wannabes. Our Parliament and our elected government have become lobbying organizations that have to compete in the seat of power with others of that ilk. These might be other national parliaments or they might be business representatives, such as the Freight Transport Association that also gave evidence to the Committee, or an NGO, such as the World Wide Fund for Nature. The latter might even be better off as it receives EU subsidies to the tune of €600,000 a year but no, that does not affect their lobbying work at all, said the piglets as they took to the skies.

I suppose we can at least say that we elect the House of Commons to lobby at the seat of power on our behalf whereas the others merely appoint themselves. But it is not much consolation when one thinks of such people as John Hampden, John Bright [pictured above] or Richard Cobden.

Judges+01[i-Judges+01]The House of Lords (though, of course, not the highly paid House of Commons) will be sitting tomorrow to debate several matters, including a report published by the European Union Committee in July, entitled “Initiation of EU Legislation”. Even if one disagrees with their choice of witnesses (though, to some extent, this is self-selecting) and some of the conclusions, it is a fascinating document to read as it lays out many of the issues of EU legislation very clearly and cogently, though often admiringly.

The word "accountability" is not mentioned, curiously enough.

At present, I am working on notes for the debate on which I shall report as soon as Hansard publishes the words spoken. In the meantime, let me bring up one interesting point made in connection with legislation to do with justice and the problems common law countries face. Incidentally, this is about the only part of the EU legislation in which Member States can initiate legislation. In all other sectors, it is the Commission.

Paragraph 51 of the Report says:

The Bar Council pointed out that the exclusion of national stakeholders from the Justice Forum carried the risk, in particular, that the voice of the common law systems would not be heard. They drew our attention to a lack of knowledge of common law systems among Commission officials, and problems which occurred where draft legislation, particularly in the fields of police cooperation and civil and criminal justice, was drafted without proper consideration of the implications for common law countries. They gave the example of the Commission's green paper on wills and succession.

Great. Let's simply discard centuries of carefully built up and highly admired tradition because the bozos in the Commission Commission officials know nothing about it. Incidentally, this involves four countries: the UK, Ireland, Cyprus and Malta.

Then again, this is what Professor Steve Peers (Professor of Law, University of Essex) opined:

Professor Peers agreed that the Directorate General concerned with Justice and Home Affairs had relatively few officials from a common law background, and said it was relatively under-staffed. Many proposals have presented huge problems from a common law perspective even where, as in the case of proposals on criminal procedural law and on a European evidence warrant, they had been drafted by English and Scottish nationals, respectively.

English and Scottish nationals? What on earth does this professor of law teach his students? Just don’t send your children to study law at the University of Essex.

The answer to the problem seems obvious to most of us: it is not really possible to create a common system of law for countries that have such different traditions. But that is not the answer that the various witnesses gave to the Committee. This is what Paragraph 55 says:

Professor Peers thought the best solution would be to increase the representation of the common law within the Commission. He suggested that the Commission might consider how it is organised and the way in which it obtains information in the early stages of a proposal, to ensure that different legal traditions are represented. (Q 52) Vijay Rangarajan (Counsellor, UKRep) referred to the Government's work to raise awareness of the common law systems among Commission officials from civil law countries by promoting both training and the secondment of officials from the UK. (QQ 303, 305)

Raise awareness? Isn't that the jargon the Home Office uses when they send police officers for diversity and sensitivity training? It seems that the Member States with common law traditions have joined the ranks of protected minorities. What none of this explains is that whatever awareness may or may not be raised, the policies developed for purposes of integration are unlikely to take common law into account.