EU Referendum

Showing posts with label legislation. Show all posts

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

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.

Desrosier_Noah[i-Desrosier_Noah]There has been a certain amount of fuss recently over the case of the sued hairdresser. The story is readily available in the MSM so I shall sum it up very quickly indeed. Ms Sarah Desrosiers runs a hairdressing salon in King's Cross, which specializes, as she puts it, in "funky urban hairstyles". I am not sure I know what it means but whatever it is the business has been successful. As it happens I know two young women whose hair is always beautifully cut, who had followed Ms Desrosiers when she left the big salon she had worked for and set up her own business.

In other words, we are talking about a talented, hard-working, entrepreneurial young woman of the kind this country needs many more of. Whether we are going to have them after this particular episode remains questionable.

Ms Desrosiers's problems started when she interviewed another young woman by the name of Bushra Noah for the position of a junior against her initial decision as the latter was not local. Ms Noah, it seems, pleaded for an interview and, according to Ms Desrosiers, arrived and behaved as if she had already got the job. In the circumstances, it is legitimate to ask whether she had been put up to this by some organization or other. Remember Shabina Begum? If not, see here, here and here. Come to think of it, whatever happened to Ms Begum?

The main problem with Ms Noah (there seem to have been several) was her refusal to remove her headscarf or allow even a wisp of hair to show from under it. (Actually, that is a nonsensical attitude anyway, as even the most devout Muslim women are allowed to take their scarves off in the presence of other women merely.) Ms Desrosiers considers, with some justification, that a hairdresser should show her own hair to the customers and be part of the hairdressing scene. The fact that this might sometimes put off potential customers is a calculated risk the hairdresser takes.

Ms Noah, who had already been rejected by 25 other hairdressing salons, sued Wedge, Ms Desrosiers’s business, for discrimination and hurt feelings. The story hit the media and support for Ms Desrosiers was widespread within and outside hairdressing circles. To this day if one reads comments on some of the very flip and silly articles on the subject one can see where popular sympathies lie.

Eventually, the tribunal decided that there was no direct discrimination, no word having passed about religion, race or ethnicity, merely about the headgear but there was indirect discrimination, whatever that might be, and hurt feelings. Ms Noah has been awarded £4,000 on that basis. Apparently, being rejected for a job is a sign of indirect discrimination and hurt feelings. I wonder whether I should have sued some of the people that did not employ me in the past for whatever reason they had.

Some of the reactions in the blogosphere have been predictable in concentration on giving in to Islamist pressure and multi-cultidom. But there are wider issues at stake here.

First of all, there is the question of what constitutes indirect discrimination, a concept defined in Directive 2000/78/EC and thus being outside the ability of Parliament to do anything about as being:

(b) indirect discrimination shall be taken to occur where an apparently neutral provision, criterion or practice would put persons having a particular religion or belief, a particular disability, a particular age, or a particular sexual orientation at a particular disadvantage compared with other persons unless:

(i) that provision, criterion or practice is objectively justified by a legitimate aim and the means of achieving that aim are appropriate and necessary, or

(ii) as regards persons with a particular disability, the employer or any person or organisation to whom this Directive applies, is obliged, under national legislation, to take appropriate measures in line with the principles contained in Article 5 in order to eliminate disadvantages entailed by such provision, criterion or practice.

According to the article in the Daily Mail, for which I hope Ms Desrosiers received enough money to pay off Ms Noah:

But with regard to the issue of indirect discrimination, they found that Sarah had pursued a "legitimate aim - that aim being to promote the image of the business".

However, the burden of proof was on Sarah to prove that her means of achieving that legitimate aim was proportionate.

She was not able to prove her contention that employing someone with a headscarf would have the negative impact on her business's stylistic integrity that she feared.

In other words, Ms Desrosiers had shown no discrimination based on anything that was irrelevant to her business but the tribunal, made up of people who have, presumably, never had much to do with running anything to do with real enterprise, arrogated itself the right to decide whether "her means of achieving that legitimate aim was proportionate". The person who runs a business, who has taken all the risks and has put in all the work is not, according to this, qualified to judge such matters for herself without the wise guidance of the state's myridons. The fact that if she makes the wrong decision Ms Desrosiers will be punished by losing clients and, thus, profits is not an argument these people understand.

Secondly, there is the issue of being entitled to some job you happen to covet. Ms Noah's "strongest" argument was that she had always wanted to be a hairdresser and was being prevented from fulfilling her overwhelming ambition. Why anyone who thinks women should not show their hair should have that ambition is beyond me. Furthermore, I understand that she is now studying some other trade so the ambition has not proved to be overwhelming enough.

The question is does having that ambition entitles you to a job, whether you are qualified or suitable. The message to many of our young people is that it does. That is why we get all that whingeing about people wanting to be dancers but not getting any jobs from girls who have clearly never done any training.

There is legal support for this point of view on its way in, yes, you guessed it, the Constitutional Reform Lisbon Treaty. Article 15 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights (and most lawyers think that Britain's opt-out or opt-in or whatever you want to call it is not worth the paper it is written on) is entitled: "Freedom to choose occupation and the right to engage in work". Sounds fine. Why should one not be free to choose an occupation or engage in work?

However, the first item in that Article reads:

Everyone has the right to engage in work and pursue a freely chosen or accepted occupation.

This goes some way beyond nobody, particularly the state, having the right to prevent you from doing the work you want to do. This gives everyone the right to get the job they think is right for them or have always dreamt of having. I predict many more cases of the kind Bushra Noah engaged in and even fewer small businesses expanding.

legislation[i-legislation]The fortnightly publication, eurofacts, carries an article on the number of laws that originate in Brussels. Unfortunately, there is no link to the article itself, but we can all read the House of Commons research notes from which the figures were taken.

What triggered the eurofacts article was a piece in the monthly magazine Prospect (apparently, some people still read it), which trotted out the well-known line that less than 10 per cent of British legislation originate in Brussels. Actually, even that proportion would be too high, but, in any case, it is completely wrong, as the figures show, for one very good reason. Prospect does not take into account Regulations and Decisions.

The actual research paper shows

… that over the previous seven parliamentary sessions the number of statutory instruments laid under the European Communities Act 1972 represents about nine per cent of the total number of the total number of statutory instruments laid before Parliament during this period.

This, however, is only a relatively small part of the picture.

One part of said picture that the editors of eurofacts do not mention is that numerous statutory instruments laid under other Acts of Parliament also introduce legislation that originated in Brussels though, as the research paper points out:

Although distinct from UK legislation, EC laws become part of UK law by virtue of the European Communities Act 1972. EC law also takes precedence over existing UK law, which must be amended if it is found to conflict with EC law.

Furthermore, though Regulations are directly applicable, "for practical reasons, uniformity is not always possible without additional implementing measures, particularly in the area of agriculture. Thus, many agricultural regulations are in fact implemented in the UK by Statutory Instrument (S.I.)". These would not necessarily be counted as statutory instruments introduced under the 1972 Act.

I am inclined to agree with Vaughne Miller, the author of the research paper, in that “it is impossible to give an accurate answer to the question of how many laws orginate in Brussels”. Well, maybe not impossible, but very difficult, indeed.

The research paper, or Note, to give it its proper title, is extremely helpful and I recommend it to all our readers or, at least, those of them who are genuinely interested in working out the relationship between EU and British legislation.

It explains the three most important forms of EU legislation, how they are produced within the EU and how they are implemented into British law.

Pages 4 to 7 give figures of European legislation from 1980 to 2006, breaking them down according to whether they were passed by the Commission or the Council, with or without the European Parliament and according to what kind of legislation they were.

All the figures are of interest, but the last few years especially so, as we have been told repeatedly that the EU now aims to do less and to do it better.

Thus in 2002 the Commission produced 44 directives, 602 regulations and 610 decisions while the Council produced 149 directives (inc.36 with EP), 164 regulations (inc.24 with EP) and 57 decisions (inc.6 with EP). That makes a total of 193 directives, 766 regulations and 667 decisions, that is a grand total of 1,626 pieces of legislation.

The numbers in 2003 and 2004 went down, then started climbing again in 2005. In 2006, though they shot up again. The Commission produced 76 directives, 1,795 regulations and 781 decisions; the Council obliged with 101 directives (inc.38 with EP), 238 regulations (inc.43 with EP) and 264 decisions (inc.21 with EP). That gives us a total of 177 directives, 2,033 regulations and 1,045 decisions or, in other words, 3,255 pieces of legislation, most of which have not been implemented into British law yet and will not be for some time to come.

One of the things we must remember is that there is always a time lag between legislation passed in the EU, which in itself is a process that takes many years, disregarding such minor matters as elections, and their appearance in the British parliament or just in British life. By that time it is too late as the legislation is a done deal.

The paper does discuss the question of what proportion of British legislation comes from the EU and comes up with fudged answers, either because they are from departments that do not come under EU competence or come under it only partially or because the civil servants who write those replies play with words.

Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked in January 2006

Further to the Written Answer by Lord Triesman on 14 November (WA 117), why they will not provide a full estimate of the United Kingdom legislation which originated in the European Union since 1998, bearing in mind that the GermanFederal Department of Justice has estimated that 80 per cent. of German laws or regulations were so made over that period.

The response was a masterpiece of obfuscation:

Many EU regulations have a purely technical or temporary effect. We estimate that around 50 per cent. of UK legislation with a significant economic impact has its origins in EU legislation. OECD analysis of regulation in Europe yields similar results. In 2002, they estimated that 40 per cent. of all new UK regulations with a significant impact on business were derived from Community legislation. Despite reports that 80 per cent. of German regulation emanates from the EU, the German Government estimates that the proportion is about 50 per cent.

Who calculates what is a significant impact? Read the whole paper. It is very useful and instructive.

In the early evening hours of Friday 29th January, a 16-year old girl from the German town border town of Gronau was out walking her dog when she was struck by a car driven by a 52-year old Dutchman from the nearby Dutch city of Enschede. Apparently, she and the dog were carried some 50 meters on the bonnet of the car before falling off and being run over by another car travelling in the other direction. She died in hospital about an hour later.

A breath test and later blood test resulted in the man being charged with culpable homicide. Of course, the German authorities immediately confiscated the man's driving license ... but Dutch authorities have admitted that under EU law, the man is not banned from driving in any other EU country. The most they can charge him for in the Netherlands is not carrying his driving license.

Is this really what EU cooperation is all about?

Water+leak[i-Water+leak]Booker’s column this week was packed with all sorts of goodies. My colleague has covered one of the stories. We also get a discussion of the metric martyrs with credit given where it is due and not to some upstart Tory MEP. Then there is the question of Ofwat, the water companies and our wretched so-called legislators who are clearly ignorant of the basic facts of life.

This has been a rainy winter and spring (apart from April, which will be the month the man-made-climate-change freaks will cite endlessly) yet there are still hose bans in some parts of the country.

Water bills are going up. It is all the fault of those wicked water companies, particularly Thames Water, if you listen to Hizonner the Mayor, who has never quite managed to overcome his distaste for private business. Or it is the fault of Ofwat if you listen to our esteemed MPs. Not hitting those water companies hard enough.

Or one could eschew both of these rather specious explanations and dubious sources and look at the truth as Christopher Booker has done this Sunday. Mending leaks and replacing water pipes costs money. Right? Water companies have the money to do so. Right? Wrong.

The article leads us back to a Starred Question in the House of Lords on the subject of water supply and demand. Most of the discussion is of relatively limited interest until we get to Lord Pearson’s intervention, which goes to the nub of the matter of money.

My Lords, is the Minister aware that by 1997 we had spent some £48 billion on three EU water purification directives? Will he bring us up to date on the money that has since been spent on those directives? Does the noble Lord agree that if we had been wiser and had we spent the money on what really mattered—namely, infrastructure and supply—we would not be in the position that we now face, however much rain we occasionally get and whatever the quality of his rain?

Lord Rooker’s response on behalf of HMG was subdued:

My Lords, I do not think that anyone can criticise. I have not come armed with all the figures on what we have done with the infrastructure in the past 10 years. Billions of pounds have been spent over and above that previously spent. I will find out what has happened to the money that the noble Lord referred to and I will write to him.

He has now written to Lord Pearson of Rannoch and given an answer. Booker quotes it in his article:

Spending to comply with the directives now totals £65 billion. Only £14 billion has been left for infrastructure.

This raises a couple of interesting points. The first one is obvious and Booker makes it crystal clear: our so-called legislators not only do less and less legislating, they know less and less about how it is done. (And I bet they don’t know how sausages are made either.)

An equally important issue is the ease with which certain notions about the environment and what benefits it are accepted. Whenever the subject of the water directives came up in the past – mostly brought up by Lord Pearson of Rannoch – the government would blithely explain that the cost of implementing one of them would be somewhere between £2 billion and £8 billion or some suchlike figure. Not to worry, it will all benefit the environment. Except that the environment in this country would benefit far more from an improved infrastructure.

Similarly, we have never had a cost/benefit analysis in either economic or environmental terms of the great recycling effort. It’s all for the environment or our children’s future. But is it? Time to start asking for that analysis, methinks.

More on the subject over at One London.

COMMENT THREAD

Documents[i-Documents]Heigh-ho, another list of European documents arrived the other day. Still yellow and still A5 but only 9 sides this time. Let us see what delights it has.

The first side lists 4 Volumes of the C Series of the Official Journal of the European Union (Information and Notices) and 4 volumes of the L Series (Legislation). Those publications continue to be useful to anyone who is really interested in how legislation is done throughout the European Union, including Britain, though this fact is a little hard to explain to people sometimes.

An item about Tenders and we come to the Working Documents. Most of these seem to be connected with the work (if that is the right word) of the European Parliament. The first one, however, is quite interesting:

A6 – 0052/2007 5th March 2007 – Report on the initiative by the Republic of Austria with a view to adopting a Council decision amending Decision 2002/348/JHA concerning security in connection with football matches with an international dimension.

Ah yes, something hovers around my consciousness about the Austrian Presidency wanting to sort out football hooliganism for the World Cup. Undoubtedly, this initiative will go on to emerge with various unenforceable Regulations.

We have three Reports on proposals, to wit:

A6 – 0055/2007 6th March 2007 – I Report on the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the civil liability and financial guarantees of shipowners.

A6 – 0062/2007 7th March 2007 – I Report on the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning structural business statistics

A6 – 0065/2007 13th March 2007 – Report on the proposal for a Council Decision on the Community participation in the capital increase of the European Investment Fund.

That last one, I suspect, is another way of throwing taxpayers’ money into something that should be done entirely by the private sector.

After this we get one Oral Question for Question Time during the European Parliament Plenary in March and lots and lots of Motions. Motion for a Resolution on EU restrictions on liquids that passengers can carry on aircraft; Motion for a Resolution on Euro-Mediterranean relations; Motion for a Resolution on a possible reform of EU trade policy instruments; Motion for a Resolution on non-proliferation and nuclear disarmament; and other suchlike goodies. All this takes up the time of various MEPs and I would not object to it particularly, as it keeps them off the streets. But we are paying for this rubbish. Each MEP costs us something in the region of £1 million a year. Are they really necessary?

As we have just had a plenary sitting of the European Parliament (well, something like three weeks before this document was published but that is “just” for the EP) there are several volumes of verbatim reports of the proceedings and Minutes of meetings as well as three lots of texts adopted during the sittings. Of course, most of the EP’s work (if that is the right word) goes on in committees so plenary sessions are of marginal importance.

Draft Legislation this time round consists of 25 items but someone are not really in the right section, though it is hard to tell where you would put

7550/07 EUROJUST Annual Report 2006?

I suspect it could be an interesting read, though.

Anyway, in no particular order, here are six examples of draft legislation, which will, probably, in the fullness of time lose the “draft” bit:

6313/1/07 REV 1. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down procedures relating to the application of certain national technical rules to products lawfully marketed in another Member State and repealing Decision 3052/95/EC.

7413/07. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on quarterly statistics on Community job vacancies.

7525/07. Communication from the Commission – State of progress with the project to implement the new generation European air traffic management system (SESAR).

7615/07. Communication from the Commission to the Council in accordance with Article 19(1) of Council Directive 2003/96/EC (operation of private pleasure craft and private pleasure-flying).

Hmm. Shouldn’t all that private flying be banned to prevent greater global warming? Oh no, sorry, we wouldn’t get people flying around telling us to switch off our central heating and get all our energy from windmills.

7628/07. Proposal for a Council Regulation on the financial Regulation applicable to the Euratom Supply Agency.

7750/07. Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning meat and livestock statistics.

All right, so it is all very dull. Of course, it is dull. And there is plenty more where that came from, also very dull. But it is these bits of dullness that have created the spider's web that has entangled this country to the point when even coming out of the European Union will be so fraught with difficulty as to be almost unmanageable.

COMMENT THREAD

Recycling01[i-Recycling01]I don't, as it happens, mean that of the Second Sea Lord, in whose naval shoes I would not like to be, or Des Browne. I mean Trevor Thomas,

a member of the fly-tipping crew at the city council, who was called in to investigate the contents of a recycling bag outside Mr Reeves' flat on June 8.

Michael Reeves, that hardened criminal (good to know they have no real crime in Swansea) has lost his appeal against a conviction of ... shock, horror .... putting paper in the bottles and cans recycling bag. Bill Sikes had nothing on this chap, I tell you.

Anyway, he

must now pay an extra £350 costs in addition to the £100 fine and £100 costs imposed by Swansea magistrates last October

and his general opinion is that all this recycling is not worth the paper it is printed on and he will do nothing about it in future. If you believe that recycling is a good thing, that is not the outcome that you want but I have no doubt that the Trevor Thomases of this world will use this terrible example to frighten children with and to demand the legal right to go through people's rubbish bins inside as well as outside their homes to ensure that they recycle and do it the way they are told to do.

But hey, don't some people have useful and interesting jobs. Puts blogging and political research into perspective.

COMMENT THREAD

Documents[i-Documents]Amidst all the excitement of last week and the visible disintegration of Britain’s reputation across the world, one thing remained certain: the European Union carried on producing documents.

Last week I received, as I do every fortnight, a House of Lords form that lists all the European Printed Papers that have become available in the period of time that elapsed from the previous form. This document is yellow, to distinguish it from the pink one that lists all the Parliamentary Printed Papers. They are both A5 in shape.

The form dated 30th March 2007 has just over 10 sides of A5 for the listing of European documents and another side or so for Explanatory Memoranda, produced by our own civil servants, to explicate documents that had been in the previous list. With me so far?

Let us go into a little detail because these are the documents that have enabled Britain “to punch above her weight” and “to have a greater influence on world affairs”.

The first side of A5 merely lists fifteen editions of the Official Journal of the European Union, in itself a compilation of Information and Notices (Series C) and Legislation (Series L). A careful perusal of these interminable Journals will give anyone a clear (though mudlike in complexion) view of what is coming in from the European Union into this country by way of legislation, regulation and just general mayhem. I recommend a course of it to anyone who thinks the “European issue” is of little significance.

Moving right along, we come to Tenders and there is only one document listed, Contrax Weekly, Part One, undoubtedly of importance but I may have lost the will to live as I tried to find it on the internet.

Then there are the Working Documents. On 30th March there were 26 listed. It is not possible for me to copy all the titles, so I shall give a few examples, in order that our readers appreciate what a valuable contribution all this makes to our well-being and how far it all enhances our standing in the world.

A6-0019/2007 5th February 2007 - *Report on the Proposal for a Council Decision on authorising Member States to ratify, in the interests of the European Community, the 2006 Consolidated Maritime Labour Convention of the International Labour Organisation.

Then we get three reports, proposals and recommendations from the European Parliament on the EU negotiating for various agreements with the Andean Community and its members, the countries of Central America and something to do with Bosnia-Herzegovina. This is just in case anybody thinks that individual countries in the European Union can negotiate by themselves.

A6-0032/2007 8th February 2007 – Report on Biotechnology: Prospects and Challenges for Agriculture in Europe.

A6-0033/2007 8th February 2007 – Report on a Roadmap for equality between women and men (2006 -2010)

A Roadmap, one must assume, will lead to Decisions and Recommendations, possibly to Regulations, there being plenty of Directives on the subject.

The next one is rather sinister as, theoretically, the Charter of Fundamental Rights has no powers until the European Constitution has been ratified and implemented.

A6-0036/2007 12th February 2007 – Report on compliance with the Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Commission’s legislative proposals: methodology for systematic and rigorous monitoring.

A6-0036/2007 1st March 2007 – Report on the future of professional football in Europe.

The next one is a real corker. How anyone can doubt that this will improve Britain’s standing in the world, I cannot understand.

A6-0038/2007 1st March 2007 - *Report on the Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EEC) No. 1883/78 laying down general rules for the financing of interventions by the European Agricultural Guidance and guarantee Fund, Guarantee Section.

A6-0039/2007 1st March 2007 – Report on local authorities and development cooperation.

I am going to skip a few Working Documents as I do not want to be held responsible for the fatalities among our readers. A bit further down we get the following four:

A6-0043/2007 2nd March 2007 - ***I Report on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning integrated pollution prevention and control (codified version). [That means a Directive to bring together all previous Directives on the subject with a few additional points.]

A6-0044/2007 2nd March 2007 – Report on the islands and natural and economic constraints in the context of the regional policy.

A6-0045/2007 2nd March 2007 - ***I Report on the Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on the identification of controls, tell-tales and indicators for two- or three-wheel motor vehicles (codified version).

A6-0046/2007 2nd March 2007 - ***I Report on the amended Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on injunctions for the protection of consumers’ interests (codified version).

Of course all these proposals for Directives will, in the fullness of time, become just that, possibly in a version that is even less palatable than the original proposal. And Parliament will not be able to do anything about it, though, I have no doubt, there will be much wailing about the lack of scrutiny.

As I am now rapidly losing the will to live I shall quote only three more Working Documents before going on to Draft Legislation:

A6-0054/2007 5th March 2007 – Report on a Thematic Strategy for the Sustainable Use of Natural Resources.

C6-0011/07 Commission Staff Working Document – summary of the Impact Assessment: Inclusion of Aviation in the EU Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

C6-0061/07 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 98/70/EC as regards the specification of petrol, diesel and gas-oil and introducing a mechanism to monitor and the introduction of a mechanism and reduce greenhouse gas emissions from the use of road transport fuels and amending Council Directive 1999/32/EC, as regards the specification of fuel used by inland waterway vessels and repealing Directive 93/12/EEC.

No, I know that last one makes no sense at all but I have copied it as it is written and can only surmise that whoever was putting together this document became catatonic with boredom.

So let us pass on to Draft Legislation. Only 25 in this lot and some of them are of secondary importance. This one, for instance:

5553/07 ADD1 Commission Staff Working Document – “Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2007” – Country profiles.

Or this one:

5553/07 ADD2 Commission Staff Working Document – “Joint Report on Social Protection and Social Inclusion 2007” – Supporting document.

There are several documents to do with military operation in DR Congo (well, not so much military as sort of being around, though not too close to the scene of action during the elections) and the establishment of a possible International Civilian Mission in Kosovo.

Still, here is an honest to goodness Regulation:

7291/07 Proposal for a Council Regulation amending Regulation (EC) No. 527/2003 authorising the offer and delivery for direct human consumption of certain wines imported from Argentina which may have undergone oenological processes not provided for in Regulation (EC) No. 1493/1999.

And another one:

7371/07 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Regulation No. 11 concerning the abolition of discrimination in transport rates and conditions, in implementation of Article 79(3) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community and Regulation (EC) No. 852/2004 of the European Parliament and the Council on the hygiene of foodstuffs.

And one honest to goodness Directive, the only part of all this taradiddle that is actually going to have to go through Parliament though, probably, only as secondary legislation:

7292/07 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2006/66/EC on batteries and accumulators and waste batteries and accumulators, as regards the implementing powers conferred on the Commission.

Anyone interested in embarrassing any MP might like to ask about this proposal and what it might entail.

One more Directive and I shall let you all go:

7512/07 Proposal for a Council Directive amending Directive 2003/96/EC as regards the adjustment of special tax arrangements for gas oil used as motor fuel for commercial purposes and the coordination of taxation of unleaded petrol and gas oil used as motor fuel.

So it goes, week after week, month after month, year after year, regardless of elections, parliamentary sessions and world events.

COMMENT THREAD

Hazel+Byford[i-Hazel+Byford]It is not so much the big issues like the performance of the British navy in Iraq that make me despair. After all, a casual reading of, say, Pepys’s diary will indicate that there have been ups and downs in British naval and military history before. I am never impressed by people on the forum who throw examples of past glory at me, shouting that we have reached an unprecedented low point. Those examples are always selective.

No, it is the smaller things that are infinitely more depressing. The feeling that one goes round and round in circles and nothing one does makes the slightest difference in the way matters are seen and comprehended.

Take this question by the infinitely well-meaning Baroness Byford put to HMG last Thursday:

Whether they will take steps to increase the amount of British food which is publicly procured.

I speak as someone who has, on occasion, tried to explain to the good lady that legislation to do with the public procurement of anything when the contract’s value is over £100,000 comes under EU legislation, namely the Public Procurement Directive. I might as well have spared myself the trouble. Neither she, now anyone else who took part in that short debate, including Lord Rooker who was replying on behalf of HMG seemed to be aware of this interesting piece of legislation.

It is true that there are certain ways of getting round it when it comes to food for some institutions not by using the term “local” but by making freshness and, possibly, organic quality a condition laid down in the contract. Of course, whether small producers can supply enough food to cater for a largish public department is a separate question. As is the rather wild assumption that British produced food is always better. This view, I can assure our readers, is not shared by a very large proportion of the British population, never mind the rest of the world. (Though I, personally, maintain that if you know where to shop you can get the best.)

Getting back to the Starred Question in the Lords. Lord Rooker’s reply was masterly in its lack of precise information:

My Lords, the Government are continuing to take steps to encourage and help public bodies to increase opportunities for small and local food producers, as shown by the guidance tools, the case studies and other information published on the public sector food procurement initiative website.

He was reminded by Baroness Byford that precious little progress has been made on this issue with HMG not knowing precisely which department in Whitehall sources British food and which does not. That is not altogether surprising. After all, HMG never knows what any Whitehall department does in any way.

Lord Rooker became quite huffy:

My Lords, the noble Baroness makes a bold allegation, which I do not think is borne out by the evidence. In 2006 we produced Selling to the public sector—a guide to the Public Sector Procurement Initiative for farmers and growers; we produced the red tractor scheme for safe, assured and traceable food for the public sector; and this year we published the DIY guide to implementing the PSFPI—advice for practitioners, which is full of modules and case studies for farmers and local producers to get a grip on this.

The record of Whitehall departments is not perfect. Most departments know the percentage of British food served in 2005-06, but I regret to say that the Ministry of Defence, the Northern Ireland Office and the Home Office state that the information can be provided only at disproportionate cost. That is not good enough. No. 10 does not know. That is not good enough. I have the Prime Minister’s support on that. He said:

“I want the public sector to take a lead on doing things sustainably—through the way we run central Government and through the way we buy goods and services”.

Later this year the Sustainable Development Commission will start publishing these figures for all around Whitehall, and therefore people will be on the spot.

The noble Baroness asked me about the Department of Health, but, looking down the list, it does not appear to be on it. Apart from the departments I mentioned, all the others seem to know. The Scottish Office and the Welsh Office, by the way, do not have in-house catering.

In other words, waffle by any other name.

The debate makes interesting reading and I definitely recommend it, particularly as it is very short. But please note the absence of the words European and Union. Some amount of depression is forgivable, surely.

COMMENT THREAD

link[i-link]There is nothing wrong with Philip Johnston’s article in today’s Daily Telegraph, “Who will defend our free speech?”, except for the fact that it comes too late. In fact, his description of the House of Commons Scrutiny Committee, which gave Joan Ryan, the Home Office minister responsible for European matters, rather a hard time makes one feel that the whole meeting was too late.

Let us get one basic point out of the way. Scrutiny is not the same as legislation. When Michael Connarty, chairman of the Scrutiny Committee, fulminated that “the privileges and rights of Parliament were being ignored”, he was talking through his hat.

The privileges and rights (and, allow me to add, duties) of Parliament to legislate and to hold the executive to account have long ago disappeared. Partly, the problem lies in the excessive use of secondary legislation and, partly, naturally enough, with the fact that European legislation supersedes national. In other words, just in case some journalist or politician reads this, Parliament cannot throw out legislation that originated in Brussels and went through the often years-long process there until it became law.

This process pays no attention to such insignificant matters as elections either at the national or the European level. If a particular piece of legislation is stuck somewhere in the European Parliament when there is an election, the new and, possibly, different body simply picks up where the previous one left off. Incomplete legislation does not die with elections.

In any case, the only body where legislation can originate, according to the Consolidated Treaties, effectively this country’s constitution, is the Commission, which puts together a Work Programme every year and proceeds to put as much of it as it can into place. Anything that is pushed over, is put into the following year’s programme.

This whole process is so boring that most journalists, even very sensible ones like Philip Johnston, cannot be bothered to write about it. Even if they wanted to, it is unlikely that their editors would agree, citing terminal boredom and fall-off in readership.

Politicians are even less likely to pay attention. Some time ago I attended a Bruges Group meeting at which Gisela Stuart fulminated, with a great deal of justification, at the con-trick that the Convention she was part of, which was supposed to put the ideas of the Laeken Declaration into some form of an agreement, was turning out to be.

During the discussion she showed some interest in the whole process of European legislation and, therefore, I was a little surprised to discover that she did not think debating the Commission’s Annual Work Programme was a good idea but preferred the pointless and blood-pressure raising debates to take place when the legislation has passed all the EU hurdles and was being implemented in Britain, by which time it is way too late.

Mr Johnston is, of course, absolutely correct in his statement that if there is a scrutiny reserve placed on a particular subject, the minister in question has not right to agree to it. However, this particular rule is honoured more often in the breach than in the observance.

In any case, once we have signed up to the European Arrest Warrant and the European Evidence Warrant, both subjects covered by this blog a while ago, the details become less relevant. The time to stop it is when the European legislation is still being discussed, but apart from several insistent questions in the House of Lords, little was made of the two pieces of legislation.

By the time we get down to individual agreements, it is way, way too late to argue about implementation. We are duty bound to do so and all the Scrutiny Committee can do is to fulminate.

In another posting I shall cover the work of the House of Lords European Union Select Committee, whose indefatigable work is not even known, let alone appreciated.

For the time being I should just like to point out that Philip Johnston makes the very common mistake of assuming that European legislation consists of directives only, that have to wing their way through Parliament, however fast. I am afraid, the bulk of it is regulations that do not necessarily touch that building in Westminster at all. The situation is even worse than Mr Johnston thinks though some of us have known that for some time.

COMMENT THREAD

Hawaii+Five-o[i-Hawaii+Five-o]Those of us who grew up on the TV crime series Hawaii Five-O will fondly remember the last line of almost every episode with Jack Lord as Detective Steve McGarrett turning to James McArthur as Danny Williams to say: "Book 'im Danno. Murder one."

It took me a little while to work out that "murder one" is premeditated homicide while "murder two" is unintended homicide, such as accident as a result of an attack or self-defence or, even, the result of a sudden uproar.

It seems that we are to have similar distinctions in genocide. Genocide one would be that carried out with racist or xenophobic motives. Any other, common or garden genocide, such as the wholesale murder of the peasantry in Russia, Ukraine, Kazakhstan or various parts of China (to name but a few) will count as genocide two and will, therefore carry a less serious sentence.

By sentence, I do not mean a genuine legal entity, since none of the people responsible for genocide two (except for Saddam Hussein) have been charged, let alone tried or punished. But there is a sentence of world opprobrium and, clearly, genocide carried out for political reasons does not seem to be all that important.

Swastika-Gif[i-Swastika-Gif]Well, to start with, Germany, El Presidente of the European Union, has dropped plans to outlaw the swastika throughout the European Union because of various representations by Hindu groups. Of course, the Hindu sv'astika is different from the Nazi swastika, as Christopher Booker pointed out in response to the waffle presented by that all-purpose expert, Timothy Garton Ash, but, I imagine, the Hindu groups foresaw all kinds of complications and decided to nip this one in the bud.

Incidentally, the Hindu symbol adorns many a gravestone in British war cemeteries all over the world. Would they have had to be taken down?

As for the outlawing of Holocaust denying, Germany is pushing ahead with it, hoping that all EU members come to an agreement on that at the Luxembourg meeting on April 19 – 20.

"Public incitement of violence and hatred or the denial or trivialization of genocide with racist or xenophobic motives" should be criminalized EU-wide, German officials said in Brussels on Monday. "But the plan does not include a ban on certain symbols such as swastikas."

There are times when I read pronouncements by officials and politicians and nearly give up the will to live. What kind of an idiot thinks that public incitement or violence and hatred (something that is covered by the criminal law of all member states) is the same as the denial or trivialization of any historical event, however ghastly?

First of all, define trivialization. How does this solemn prig feel about Jewish jokes throughout the ages, whose aim was to trivialize the various problems the Jews faced. There are jokes about the Nazi system, about Jews in Germany under the Nazis and even about the death camps.

One of the most moving films about the Holocaust, though it dealt with the Italian side of it, was "La Vita e Bella", in which the main character hides his little son when the other children are gassed and pretends to him that they are at a holiday camp, playing a long and elaborate game. Trivialization? Well, I barely managed to contain my tears.

What of the whole genre of labour camp jokes that grew up in the Soviet Union? Oh sorry, those camps, even when they were part of attempted genocide, were not put up with "racist and xenophobic motives" or not overtly so. They can be trivialized and even denied.

Stalin+etc[i-Stalin+etc]As it happens a good deal of Stalin's ferocity was directed against specific national groups and all religions were at risk. What of the Chechens, Ingushi and Tatars who were deported wholesale at the end of World War Two? What of the second big purge just before his death that was seriously anti-Semitic? Of course, he was trying to exterminate or, at least, deport wholesale, Jews because they were "rootless cosmopolitans" not because they were Jews. That, presumably, makes it genocide two rather than genocide one.

This blog fully intends to campaign for the upgrading of genocide two. The denial or trivialization of the holocaust of the Ukrainian, Russian and Kazakh peasantry must be made illegal. I am looking forward to the first trial of famine-deniers. Perhaps, it could be that of Professor Eric Hobsbawm CH.

COMMENT THREAD

concentration_camp[i-concentration_camp]The move to make Holocaust denying illegal across the EU seems to have acquired legs, with the Commission supporting the German proposal and the egregious Justice Commissar Franco Frattini (he, who got his job because the original Italian candidate Buttiglioni was a devout and practising Catholic) announced somewhat pompously that he "very much welcomed and fully supported" these proposals.

I shall not bother to rehearse all the arguments against the ban, which have nothing to do with the horrible aspect of the event and of the need to know about it and to study it (though there are other things in history to study as well).

It is, however, gag-making to hear this sort of commentary:

While freedom of expression is part of Europe's values and traditions, its democratic societies also allowed to fight racist speech through penal law, the commissioner added.

Those European values and traditions (that, of course, include Nazism and the Holocaust as well) seem to be infinitely flexible. What Commissar Frattini should be dealing with is the fully acknowledged growth in anti-Semitic attacks across the whole of western Europe in the last few years. Most of these member states, including Italy, routinely post police guard outside synagogues because they are afraid of attacks that come from one or two barely acknowledged directions.

Compared to that, the denial of something that happened some decades ago, a denial that is, moreover, not taken particularly seriously by any respectable historian or commentator, is hardly of paramount importance. Is this another effort on the part of all our lords and masters to go for displacement activity rather than trying to deal with existing and growing problems?

As we have already said on this blog, should such a ban be proposed for legislation in the United Kingdom, we shall start campaigning for legislation that would make the denial of Communist crimes illegal. Alas, we have not enough space in courts or prisons to accommodate all those who have been and still are indulging in this activity.

Pic courtesy of: bigfoto.com

COMMENT THREAD