The commission is not expected to mention the New EU council president’s salary in its first budget draft for fear of upsetting the current ratification process of the EU treaty - particularly in Ireland which is to have a referendum.
Does it not strike anyone just how dishonest and manipulative this sort of thing is?
Those who would suggest that the EU is not destined to become the United States of Europe as originally envisioned by the founding fathers of the project, might like to answer one simple question. If that were not the case, then why on earth do we continually have new treaties thrust upon us? No sooner than one treaty has been ratified but they are working on the next one, in fact there is already a “group of wise men” tasked with studying for the next treaty, even before the Lisbon treaty has been ratified
Are we really to believe the alternative, that the leaders in the EU are so stupid that they cannot write a simple treaty agreement and stick to it, instead of continually being forced to change it by events?
(more…)
The Telegraph headline Judges have limits introduces an attack on judges for interpreting the law.
The Telegraph is trying to argue that our judges should not have the authority to overrule government ministers.
In one case Lord Justice Collins ruled that soldiers should have full legal protection wherever they are. The Telegraph seems to think that the judge was wrong and says the case sets an unwelcome precedent and it is not for the courts to decide such things.
I would disagree on several fronts:
(more…)
It is claimed that Britain has no written constitution. We often hear quoted the doctrine ‘No parliament may bind its successor’. Today most often it is used to imply that there are no constitutional obligations limiting Parliament’s power.
If this were true there would be no constitution and the sovereignty of Parliament would be unlimited.
The reality is we do have a constitution which is both written and unwritten, but modern politicians by stressing only the parliamentary convention, which are nothing more than gentlemen’s agreements between the parties have raised those conventions above the written parts of our constitution.
But more than that they have also undermined those very same Parliamentary conventions, governments and parliaments do constantly bind their successors.
(more…)
A comment on this blog has prompted me to argue against an EU wide referendum on the EU treaty, or anything else for that matter.
The EU treaty is called a treaty because it is an international agreement made between the member states, who are exercising their sovereign power.
The fact that EU treaties create a constitution of the EU and any debate about the ramifications following from the powers given to EU on our national constitution, are immaterial to the fact that calling for a referendum on a treaty from the body that is the recipient of the pooled powers, is both a waste of time and self defeating.
In the first place whether we are allowed a referendum is nothing to do with the European Union, a point confirmed more than once by the EU Propaganda Minister herself on her blog;
No doubt some readers will once again demand referenda but as I have said before that is a matter for each Member State.
Understanding that the EU is part of the decision making process when it comes to the treaties, but I would argue that they are overstepping their powers by interfering in these matters. And I would agree that the Propaganda Minister is being only legally correct when she makes her claim. As she is ignoring the interference emanating from the EU commission and the EU parliament. The EU Parliament for instance, was the first parliament to vote on and accept the EU constitution, just to get the propaganda ball rolling, they did this even though that parliament’s vote on the treaty has no relevance at all.
I recognise that that is a voice calling in the wilderness, because the EU Commission and the EU parliament are some of the main movers in the demands for more power to be invested in the EU, and the retention of the powers it already has. I know that the IGC of the heads of member states, is being conflated in the minds of many, with the Council of the European Union, and that the Council decided the details of the Lisbon treaty and mandated the IGC to agree those terms without change.
But in reality the EU itself has no legal power to force the member states to agree to anything relative to which powers they delegate to the EU. As those powers are delegated from the member state, it is a matter for internal debate and decision within the state.
So it is entirely a waste of time to build an EU wide pressure group in order to influence the EU on its constitution.
But worse than being a waste, it plays right into the hands of the federalists and helps them assuage their own desperation for a popular mandate. That is exactly what they need and all they will need to back their claim, that they have a popular mandate.
Because if the people can be persuaded to approach the EU that would be a tactic admission that we accept the EU as our government, that we accept that the EU has the right to speak for us to our own governments! we would be gifting the EU with its popular mandate.
That is why the EU Propaganda minister dismisses referenda within the nation state as being only a nationalist expression, but sees the possibility of an EU wide referenda having some benefit. The only benefit of an EU wide referendum or even individual state referenda all held at the same time, is to create a propaganda coup for the EU.
Now if you want a referendum in this country then I am behind you every step of the way.
Technorati Tags:
EU Commission, EU Ministry for Propaganda, EU Parliament, EU treaty, referendum
The EU an Anti-democracy Organisation
My standpoint of opposing the European Project is based on one single fundamental issue and that is the whole project is constructed on and supported by its being anti- democratic. Anti- democratic, because it is designed to remove the power of the people from any influence. Other than that influence the EU leaders condescend to allow, unlike in a real democracy where it is the people who are protected from the over use of the powers of the state by government. The EU is a false democracy, its leaders decide which freedoms to lend to its citizens and what power over the state and what protections from the state it will allow its citizens. Although at the same time demanding protection for themselves against legal sanctions for their conduct whilst in office.
When occasionally it cannot be avoided and the EU elites are forced to acknowledge the people, it only accepts their expressed wishes, if those are considered the “correct” decision. Otherwise the EU elites reaction is as epitomised in these statements of Giscard d’Estaing:
“rejection of the Constitution was a mistake which will have to be corrected” –
“if the Irish and the Danes can vote yes in the end, so the French can do it too.”-
“It was a mistake to use the referendum process, but when you make a mistake you can correct it.”
These sorts of comments by one of the leaders and main movers of the European Project indicate the deep seated institutionalised anti-democratic nature of the whole project. Making it totally clear that it is not just simply non-democratic as if by accident as a sort of by product of its construction, but its antipathy towards democracy is built into its very framework.
What this means is that short of deconstructing the whole edifice and starting again from the ground up there is very little room to make the EU democratic and therefore acceptable as a form of government and certainly not as the basis for a European state.
The European Political elites are so certain of the basic rightness of their cause that they show themselves only to willing to reduce the concept of democracy to nothing more than a slogan to be used to further their cause.
Even if it were possible to reform the present EU we would still be faced with the question of how it arrived at its present state. As it has only achieved its present state by anti-democratic means, would it not also be anti-democratic to accept the present position, if at some point the present power and authority were to be subject to some EU wide democratic accountability. I hope I have made that last point clear I might have to revise!
The argument offered against consulting the people in a referendum is that the people would not just confine themselves to the single question at hand; for instance (do we accept the Lisbon Treaty). I for one would answer NO, but in considering my answer, I would feel that I had every right to take into account all of the other treaties, where the British people have not been offered a choice. After all, had we been offered a choice then we would have been involved in the process thus making it democratic.
Whether I wanted it or not I was made a citizen of the EU? This was decide for me by the Conservative government when they forced through the
Others may differ on the issue of EU citizenship, and had we been asked at the time, as I accept the principals of democracy I must also live by its principals, and if enough of my countries voters had expressed their opposition to my opinion then I would willing go along with the majority. But as we were not asked then we cannot now be asked to just consider the effects on our citizenship in the Lisbon Treaty without also considering the whole question of our citizenship
Technorati Tags:
Anti-democracy, EU, European Project, Constitution, Lisbon, citizen of the EU, democracy,
A little local problem
MPs voted not to give us a referendum on the EU Reform Treaty by 311 to 248, this is despite all three main parties promising a referendum.
Labour and the Lib Dems both claim that the EU Reform Treaty and EU constitution are different enough not to warrant a referendum - this is an outright lie.
The EU Reform Treaty produces the same end result as the constitution except references to the flag and anthem of the EU are moved to an appendix which is voluntary.
The constitution replaced existing treaties, the EU Reform Treaty amends them. The payload is the same, it is the method of delivery that is different.
A private referendum by iwantareferendum.com showed that 88 per cent of the electorate wants a referendum on the treaty. David Wright and all the other (mainly Labour) MPs who voted against a referendum did so in the full knowledge they were going against the wishes of their constituents.
I will do everything I can to ensure that David Wright loses his seat at the next election for his treachery.
Stuart Parr,
Stuart said: Mar 19th, 2008 at 3:58 pm
Good for you namesake. If thousands of other people did
the same in each constituency where the sitting MP reneged
on the party’s promise to let us have a referendum, they
would soon learn that treachery and flaunting the
expectations and wishes of the electorate by voting against
them would cost them very dear.
But we shouldn’t be to surprised should we, manifestos
mean nothing, promises are meant to be broken, waffle,
rhetoric, downright deceit, spin and betrayal are all the
stock in trade of MPs, particularly those of New Labour.
Peter said: Mar 20th, 2008 at 11:11 am
They promised a referendum on a constiution. This wasn’t a constitution, it was a treaty, no more significant in many ways than those that have gone before. The ‘Little Englanders’ lost - end of story.
I posted not yet moderated!
However no matter what they call the
You are of course totally free to believe anything you wish, but please do not try to pull the wool over the eyes of people who have studied the European Project because we do happen to know of what we speak.
And please do try to be reasonably up to date with your insults - Little Englanders -when out with the ark, can you people not ever manage to keep up with an ever changing world of empty meaningless rhetoric.
Notwithstanding any provision of the European Communities Act 1972, nothing in this Act shall affect or be construed by any court in the United Kingdom as affecting the supremacy of the United Kingdom Parliament.
Technorati Tags:
Finkelstein, English common law, MPs our employees, EU Lisbon treaty
Debate on Quaequam Blog
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts.
I will go into this a bit later, but first I would like to put to bed the difference between a treaty and a constitution - a treaty is the expression of sovereign power, a constitution is itself the repository of sovereign power, i.e. without sovereign power you cannot exercise an expression of that sovereignty by making a treaty.
When one starts to talk about percentage change it should be remembered that only slight changes to clauses can make a great deal of difference to the meaning and the following actions that will result from the commitment made by our government when signing the treaties.
As illustration only: the
The common foreign and security policy shall include all questions related to the security of the
This is changed slightly in the
The common foreign and security policy shall include the progressive framing of a common Union defence policy. This will lead to a common defence, when the European Council, acting unanimously, so decides.
You have asked several time in the comments what are the major difference between the previous treaties and Lisbon/Constitution there are so many that it would be impossible to list them all here, but the real major change is the Constitution and
Its laws and its Constitution are made superior to those of the member states. Please do not fall into the trap of arguing that EU law has always been superior to state law it has not, because it has never been in any of the other treaties.
The EU becomes an actor on the international stage in its own right and is invested with the power for the first time to both join international organisations such as the UN and to make international treaties in own right.
The Council of the EU becomes an institution of the EU and is obliged to act in the interests of the EU first.
Our own parliament is obliged to consider the interests of the EU.
Our nations foreign policy is weakened considerably in that we mat not take any action without first consulting our partners in the EU with the intention of ensuring that the EU`s interest is promoted.
The reason we should have a referendum on this treaty is because it radically changes our own Constitution, this is not a Eurosceptic myth, but a fact which is proven by the Irish having to hold referendum, because it is written into its constitution that changes can only be made after holding a referendum, also the French have just recently voted to change their constitution to allow for the introduction of the Lisbon treaty.
Sorry this was so long, but I was struck by your contention that EU sceptics were guilty of a logical fallacy, something I knew to be wrong and I wondered how you could have reached that conclusion, you did so by making the basic assumption with the original post, that the Constitution was 95% the same as the treaties, it is not, it is radically different and as the Lisbon treaty makes all the institutional changes that were in the Constitution it too is radically different. After ratification we will be in a totally different EU with totally different balance of powers between the supranational and the national governments.
Technorati Tags:
treaty, constitution, European Project, Council of Europe, referendum, The EU,
The majority of people in western Europe want a referendum on the Lisbon treaty, is one headline that is certainly not going to be promoted by the EU, have they even asked the question?
is intended to stimulate a wider debate between the European Union’s democratic institutions and citizens
So now instead of 6000 (Harris poll) some apparently from the USA, which itself is very small sample, being asked questions, on which to form EU policy, the system of participatory democracy whittles that down to 27 invited individuals who feel confident that they can pass on the views of the rest of all the other people in their state.
My comment at the time still stands;
Helen I am glad you enjoyed your time, but you should remember that participatory democracy is not real democracy, the purpose of real democracy is not to “stimulate a wider debate” and with the greatest of respect you were not in a position to “pass on the UK views accurately” Those views will only be known when we all get a say and we can all make a choice and when once that choice has been made the political leaders must accept that choice.
Real Democracy is not on the EU agenda so instead the EU will use those who are willing to participate in such democratic charades to inform its policy, but of course with always the proviso that they get to make the final decision on whether to accept your recommendations or to consign them to the rubbish bin, Real Democracy happens when the rubbish bin is not an option.
Now I fully accept that the headline about what sort of President the majority of us want for the EU is not going to be the final word on the subject, that will be left to horse trading in secret by the members of the council of the EU, but it is polling which will be used to inform that horse trading.
The EU system has been specifically designed to remove the participation of the peoples of
In reality our democracy is being participated and polled to death.
Technorati Tags:
referendum. Lisbon Treaty, Tony Blai, democracy in the EU, participatory democracy,
And moving swiftly on from any further debate about the Lisbon Constitution.
It has been agreed spring summit, that the EU should create a fifth freedom the Freedom of Knowledge to be added to the four original principles of free movement of persons, capital, services and goods in the European Union.
http://euobserver.com/9/25838/?rk=1
It should be noted that the other four freedoms have all resulted in integration and unification.
Technorati Tags:
Lisbon, Constitution, integration, high education, university teachers, cross-border mobility,
Archaic at 23
The amusingly named lefty blog Obsolete written by someone who goes by the name of septicisle. Is claiming that although he? Has not read the
—-wait for it
“one of the few facts I am certain of is that there are two main important differences between the constitution and the treaty, and one also which affects us personally vis-a-vis the treaty. Firstly, that the treaty, unlike the constitution, is not legally binding, and secondly that the treaty provides one important detail that wasn’t present in the constitution. To what you would expect would be the delight of some in the Conservatives and certainly UKIP, it provides a precise and exact mechanism for leaving the EU,”
I am always cheered by the suggestion that others really do know what will delight EUscpetics and litter their tomes with their own interpretations of our thoughts or what our reactions ought to be! Then, of course when we do not act in the specified manner they start to think there is something wrong with our understanding, after all have we just not be told what to think.
It is also delightful to learn from someone who really knows his stuff, that the Lisbon Treaty will not be legally binding, perhaps as that is the case we should just look upon it as having no more significance than a copy of the Beano. I mean what on earth is all the fuss about? The Lisbon Treaty is not legally binding! I wish we had known that before the MPs wasted, what was it in the end? twelve whole days to debating the Beano for gods sake.
Of course we sceptics are also absolutely delighted to discover that the other one of the two main important differences between the Constitution and the Reform/Lisbon is the inclusion of the withdrawal clause, which sets out a “precise and exact mechanism for leaving the EU”, the Constitution of course did not have a withdrawal clause.
But wait we have not yet begun to even scrape the surface of our delight, because septicisle has left the best till last-
“what” he? asks us with bated breath “would be the biggest benefit of the treaty,”
Of course it is none other than the previously mentioned Beano! But in this case the Beano offered by an earlier version of an EU Minister Keith Beano Vas.
It is The Charta of Fundamental Rights, which we are told “is an extension to the European Convention on Human Rights”
And once again so very kindly interpreting things for us we are explained to that
“This was one of the government’s red lines,” but not only that it was one of the government red lines because, well “mainly because of the sections on “solidarity” which so offend the business “community” and would ride a coach and horses through the restrictions on trade unions we’ve had since Thatcher’s days.”
EU Communication Commissioner Margot Wallström supports Andrew Duff’s idea of a new Constitutional text which should be based on the current Constitution with added bits.
The proposal is based on the existing text and foresees keeping the Preamble, as well as Parts I and II. With respect to Part III he intends to add and put more emphasis on the elements of:
Further, he proposes a “constitutional co-decision” with the new text being jointly approved by the Intergovernmental Conference (IGC) and the European Parliament. And possibly EU-wide poll at the end of the process
Strictly speaking, Duff says: “only
One suggestion is to hold a consultative ballot to test public opinion about the final package across the Union, preferably at the same time as the European Parliamentary elections in June 2009. That would have the advantage of bringing a European focus to those elections and, one would hope, in boosting turnout. The consultative nature of the exercise would not make it in a strict sense part of the formal ratification process. He might well have added in which case if it all goes wrong again we can simply ignore the ballot.
Another proposal is to allow all the classical parliamentary ratification procedures to take place first and then to submit the constitution to a final, yet formal and single referendum across the EU. In this case, the national ratifications would establish the constitution on a provisional basis subject to confirmation by a (simple or qualified) majority of European citizens. Article IV-447 would have to be re-drafted to accommodate either scheme.
Not withstanding that this would also need ratification because it is the veto on any changes to the treaty.
Margot Wallström warned that “the EU can’t afford a second failure and needs to prove that we have listened”
I wonder too what she or Duff have been listening, the people of Britian have not been allowed a vote on the document, yet they are now seeking ways of circumventing the British people basic right to objection. Duff makes the point in his pamphlet that when questioned about the EU a quarter of the British people volunteered that they did not wish to be EU citizens, although that was not one of the questions. So neither he nor Wallström can be in any doubt about the prospects of a British Referendum.
Duff has called his pamphlet “How to Rescue the European Constitution” It would seem that the answer is to ignore anything and everything which can stand it its way, the people, the present treaties or what ever it takes to get this EU Constitution through, he has even suggested “the nuclear option, which is to try to change Article 48 of the existing Treaty so that its further revision – that is, the entry into force of the new constitutional treaty – would be enacted before all member states had completed national ratification according to their own constitutional requirements. Declaration 30 and Article IV-443.4 of the 2004 text would suggest a threshold of four fifths.
But Duff rather disappointedly moans that: a special IGC just to modify Article 48 looks impossible now.
How I woke up to a nightmare plot to steal centuries of law and liberty
From the Times
By
Daniel Finkelstein
THE POINT IS, I don’t want to seem like a nutter. It’s a very common human emotion, that — not wanting to stand out for thinking something hardly anyone else thinks. Best keep your head down and say nothing. In 1978, in Jonestown, Guyana, more than 900 people voluntarily drank strawberry-coloured poison and died, each one following his neighbour, eager not to refuse the drink and have his neighbour think that he was a nutter. Perhaps the worst part of the tragedy is that the rest of us look back at them and think — what a bunch of nutters.
So I’m nervous about admitting that I’ve been having a paranoid nightmare, one that very few other people seem to share. But I have been, so you may as well know about it.
In my nightmare, Tony Blair finally decides that he is fed-up with putting Bills before Parliament. He has so much to do and so little time. Don’t you realise how busy he is? He’s had enough of close shaves and of having to cut short trips abroad. He decides to put a Bill to End All Bills before the Commons, one that gives him and his ministers power to introduce and amend any legislation in future without going through all those boring stages in Parliament.
That’s not the end of my feverish fantasy. The new law is proposed and hardly anyone notices. John Redwood complains, of course, and a couple of Liberal Democrats, but by and large it is ignored. The Labour rebels are nowhere to be seen. The business lobby announces that it is about time all those politicians streamlined things, cutting out time-wasting debates. In a half empty Commons chamber, a junior minister puts down any objections with a few partisan wisecracks. Then the Bill to End All Bills is nodded through the Houses of Parliament, taking with it a few hundred years of Parliamentary democracy.
I wake up, sweating.
Only one thing persuades me that I’m not cracking up. When I have my nightmares about the Bill to End All Bills, I am not dreaming about dastardly legislation that I fear a cartoon Tony Blair, with an evil cackle, will introduce in some terrible future. I am tossing and turning about a government Bill that was given its second reading in the House of Commons last week and is heading into committee.
Now I know what I am about to tell you is difficult to believe (Why isn’t this on the front pages? Where’s the big political row?) but I promise you that it is true. The extraordinary Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill, currently before the House, gives ministers power to amend, repeal or replace any legislation simply by making an order and without having to bring a Bill before Parliament. The House of Lords Constitution Committee says the Bill is “of first-class constitutional significance†and fears that it could “markedly alter the respective and long standing roles of minister and Parliament in the legislative processâ€.
There are a few restrictions — orders can’t be used to introduce new taxes, for instance — but most of the limitations on their use are fuzzy and subjective. One of the “safeguards†in the Bill is that an order can impose a burden only “proportionate to the benefit expected to be gainedâ€. And who gets to judge whether it is proportionate? Why, the minister of course. The early signs are not good. Having undertaken initially not to use orders for controversial laws, the Government has already started talking about abstaining from their use when the matter at hand is “highly†controversial.
Now, I am not an extreme libertarian. I don’t spend my weekends in conferences discussing the abolition of traffic lights and the privatisation of MI5. But I have to admit that the legislation being debated in the Commons this week — the new ID cards, the smoking ban, the measure on the glorification of terror — has tempted me to take up smoking and start attending lectures about Hayek organised by earnest men with pamphlets in carrier bags.
Yet the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill has made me realise that I may be missing the point — the biggest danger to civil liberties posed by these new laws is not the nature of them, but merely their quantity.
Let me explain my thinking.
The Government claims that it has no malign intention in introducing the reform to parliamentary procedures. It is just that it has such ambitious plans for deregulation — or “better regulation†as it rather suspiciously calls it — that Parliament won’t be able to cope. The previous Regulatory Reform Act, passed in 2001, was so hedged around with conditions and safeguards that it took longer to produce a regulatory reform order than it did to produce a Bill. So this time, the Government wants more sweeping powers.
During future detailed Commons consideration of the Bill, restrictions on the terms of the new orders will be resisted using the argument that business wants deregulation and government has to get on with it.
What does this argument, used often by the minister during last week’s debate, amount to? An admission that we are now passing so many new laws, so quickly, and so many of them are sloppy, that we don’t have time to debate them properly or reform them when they go wrong. Parliament is drowning in a sea of legislation. Instead of calling a halt to this, the Government is seeking a way of moving ever faster, adding yet more laws, this time with even less debate.
The problem with ID cards, smoking bans and new terror laws is not just the standard liberal one. It isn’t even that they are entirely unecessary, since you can fashion an argument for each measure. It is that we should be reforming and enforcing the laws we have, rather than adding new complicated, poorly thought through laws to the stack that already exists. The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill isn’t just a dangerous proposal. It is a flashing red light.
Our legislative activism is endangering our parliamentary democracy and we must stop before it’s too late.
Or am I a nutter?
And from the house of Commons.
David Howarth (Cambridge) (LD)ïŒCol 1094) I confine my remarks to the constitutional aspects of the Bill. This seems to me to be extraordinary legislation. It proposes changes to the legislative process that in any other country in Europe, and perhaps in the world, would require a constitutional amendment. That is one of the reasons that part 1 has to be taken on the Floor of the House.
One aspect of the Bill that seems quite disturbing is that it allows not just the addition of new crimes, with up to two years imprisonment or a level 5 fine, but it allows the Government to use the procedure to undertake structural change. Often, legislation does not regulate or add crimes, but sets up bodies and gives them powers. Among those bodies are, of course, local authorities. It strikes me that under the Bill as presently drafted, structural and functional reform of local government could be achieved without proper legislative scrutiny. Therefore, simply through using that mechanism, the balance of the constitution itself between local and central Government could be changed.
The Government will say, “Would that not be controversial?” That comes back to the point about the weakness of that test. Even the structure of the courts could be changed because they are no longer a matter of common law; they are a matter of statute. Any creature of statute, which technically includes any company, could be changed by these provisions……….
………The Minister has dealt with questions about changes to the Terrorism Bill, bringing back the 90 days detention without trial and the rights of defendants being changed. He says that, obviously, those are highly controversial, and they are, but the questions remain not just about fundamental rights, but about the structure of the constitution itself, which the Bill appears to allow to be changed.
Mr. Douglas Carswell (Harwich) (Con): (Col 1097) Part 1 enables Ministers to reform legislation or implement recommendations of the Law Commission by order. Law would, in effect, be made without reference to democratically elected parliamentarians. There would be a further extension of the power of a remote Executive and unaccountable national regulators. Merging regulators does not lead to less regulation. It was Max Weber who said as early as the 19th century that bureaucracy has an inherent tendency to expand. Bureaucracy tries to assume new powers, and to aggrandise itself. A merging of regulators could simply create new super-regulators, hungry for yet more power and more prone to regulate. I am concerned that part 1 will be a further step away from proper parliamentary scrutiny. It appears to empower the Executive, but in reality it will empower senior civil servants and those bureaucrats and regulators already beyond meaningful parliamentary accountability.
In the past 30 years, we have seen a steady erosion of representative parliamentary government. Behind the fac”ade of a functioning parliamentary democracy is an increasingly post-representative system of government. In almost every sphere—financial service regulation, food standards, environmental protection—it is remote quangos, not parliamentarians, that increasingly call the shots. Remote elites make the decisions; local people take the rap; no one is accountable; no one gets sacked: this is how we are governed today. I fear that this Bill is not so much anti-regulation as anti-democratic.
Speaking as someone who could be characterised as slightly sceptical about the European project, part 3 of the Bill leaves me somewhat suspicious. Not for the first time, measures are being introduced in the name of streamlining, but I fear that they may turn out to be a power-grab. European law is currently introduced into this country through regulation. This Bill could enable Brussels diktats to be brought in through schemes and rules. What does that mean? Yesterday in this House, one Member spoke about the European Union achieving the so-called Lisbon agenda. Remember that? It was about deregulating in order to make Europe competitive. Reference was made at the time to making Europe the most competitive economy in the world. That may seem absurd now. Easing EU institutions’ ability to make our laws for us will only exacerbate the Euro-sclerosis afflicting that tired old continent. Easing such ability will only tie us closer to those worn-out EU economies; it will only place us more firmly in Europe’s economic sarcophagus.
I welcome the Regulatory Reform Committee’s acknowledgement that, far from being about deregulation and tidying up, this Bill
“has the potential to be the most constitutionally significant Bill that has been brought before Parliament for some years.”
I welcome the recognition that the driving force behind it is the Cabinet Office and, perhaps, senior civil servants. It could become a bureaucrats’ charter: it could allow them to avoid the messy and unpredictable business of having their measures scrutinised by the people’s elected representatives. Yes, Minister, this Bill could be Sir Humphrey’s dream come true. The Minister would be able to amend, repeal and replace primary and secondary legislation without reference to this House.
It was Walter Bagehot who said in the 19th century that the Crown had ceased to be part of what he called the efficient part of the constitution and had become the dignified part. By that, he meant that it had the trappings of power, but not the reality. My fear is that although this democratically elected Parliament has the trappings of power here in our ornate Chamber, real power is increasingly moving elsewhere. This Bill will only exacerbate that process.
Mr Djanolgy: (Col 1100). The hon. Member for Somerton and Frome said that part 1 is unacceptable as it stands, and we agree.
Part 3 of the Bill relates to legislation emanating from the EU. We have said that we support the idea of making it easier for UK institutions to deal with EU legislation, but—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham and my hon. Friend the Member for Harwich asked—how will that actually work? As my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire asked, what are the rules and schemes for EU law referred to in the Bill? We need to know.
The Bill has a striking resemblance to parts of other Bills before this House and the other place. Those need to be looked at in context to highlight the growing constitutional trend away from primary legislation. The Company Law Reform Bill and the Government of Wales Bill both include a similar means of introducing orders through forms of delegated legislation
Letters from the Telegraph on ID Cards
Sir - “Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves” (William Pitt, 1783).
Rodney McGough, Harrogate, N Yorks
Sir - We are told that it is possible to track by satellite millions of cars and the distances they travel, and compute bills for each. It must be a small step to link ID cards to the satellite, to eliminate not only terrorism but also tax fraud.
David Brookman, Old Woodhouse, Leics
Sir - At an EU summit in Lisbon in April 2000, member states signed up to the “e-Europe Smart Cards Charter”. In October 2001 the EU Police Chiefs Task Force urged that “the EU should speed up the universal adoption of ID cards”.
We could have our movements and lifestyles tracked through the introduction of EU ID-cards, with the EU Galileo satellite system tracking motorists, via the EU Common Transport Policy. Yet Brussels makes unelected EU commissioners, members of its own police force Europol and other officials immune from criminal prosecution.
Mrs Val Cowell, Poulton-le-Fylde, Lancs
Sir - I am surprised the Government hasn’t proposed tattooing everyone with a number. More sophisticated would be an implanted chip such as my dog has -much cheaper than biometric ID cards.
Robert Roalfe, Wilmslow, Cheshire
Sir - We were denied a referendum to vote No to the new EU constitution. Perhaps Mr Blair could be persuaded to hold one for ID cards. He’d find out what people think before vast sums of our money are wasted on another crackpot scheme.
Trevor Jones, Corringham, Essex
News: “Wanted by Brussels: A UK Productivity Tsar
By Stephen Castle in Brussels
02 February 2005
Britain will gain a new competitiveness and productivity ‘tsar’ to help boost growth and job creation, under plans to be published today to revitalise the European economy.
The post would be drawn from the ranks of government ministers and help sell the ‘Lisbon process’ of EU-wide economic reform, which will be relaunched today by the President of the European Commission, Jose Manuel Barroso.
Like all 25 EU countries, the UK would set up a ‘National Action Programme for Jobs and Growth’, adopted after discussions in Parliament and with employers and unions. Mr Barroso believes the creation of ‘a Mr or Mrs Lisbon at government level charged with co-ordinating the different elements of the strategy’ is needed to push through promised reforms.”
EU considers US-style green cards for migrants
“We want to address the actors involved before we put forward our own proposal”, EU Justice Commissioner Franco Frattini told journalists. Its funny how they say things did not Frattini mean to say “we want to address the actors involved before we formulate proposalsâ€. Otherwise addressing the actors would merely a propaganda exercise because it would mean the Commission had already agreed on their proposals and addressing the actors would not change them. Anyway, he pointed out that only by this “bottom-up” approach could Brussels encourage a positive attitude towards economic migrants, rather than strengthening their image as a threat to European citizens. “I believe that Europe needs to identify clear conditions and rules for legal economic migration in order to fight illegal immigration”, said Mr Frattini. So it is a propaganda exercise Mr Frattini has already decided.
The Commission argues that the EU also needs a common strategy if it wants to achieve its Lisbon aim of becoming the most dynamic economy in the world by 2010 and to solve the problems caused by an ageing population.
“Immigration in itself is probably not the solution to demographic change”, Social affairs Commissioner Vladimir Spidla noted.
Perhaps someone should point out to our Tone that one of his hard fought for red lines is turning pinkish.
Loose the Delusion Gold plated arguments
As I have previously mentioned it is the little words we need to be watch out for; Loose the Delusion has grabbed a report from the British Chambers of Commerce to argue that the “New†2002/3 regulations we are faced with are mainly from our own government and not the EU, and our Government is gold plating those regulations anyway. The little word in question is “Newâ€
The BCC report on gold plating says;
“Is the gold plating one of complexity in process, or an extension of substance? This is a question which will need further work.†There are, however, several steps which can be taken to seek to remedy the burgeoning complexity of UK legislation coming from the EU and to identify the burdens it represents; these are identified in the conclusions. For all those who take seriously the question of limiting the burden of regulation and the bureaucratic impact of EU legislation on British business, this report breaks new ground, offers an arresting insight into the way laws are made and re-made in Brussels, Paris, Berlin, Lisbon and London and makes it all too clear that there must be serious scrutiny in the UK of the processes, and the legal framework, within which we construct much of our commercial legislation.
Since France achieves transposition ratios below one, it seems likely that absolute gold plating is not an issue whereas relative gold plating is at least significant in word count terms for the four UK countries.
The desire for uniformity across the EU, which appears to drive much of this legislation, should mean that relative gold plate, which by definition implies a lack of uniformity, should be attacked by Brussels. It is hard to see the logic of legislating for uniformity and then standing by while it is deformedâ€.
“The fact that to an increasing extent courts in the UK are in any case obliged to interpret legislation in line with the European Courts of Justice interpretation of EU legislation reinforces the case for directive copy-out and undermines the exercise of legal variation or prior legislationâ€.
Which I read as meaning the recent examples of EU legislation are so fully drafted that there is very little room for manoeuvre in putting them into state law, so even if gold plating was an issue in the past it is much less relevant now than previously.
However the obvious interpretation that it is our government that is making the regulation and not the EU is undermined when we look at the number of EU instruments enacted each year. This from the same BCC report;
Year 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Number of EU instruments 3,656 3,505 3,343 3,415 3,413
When one does not work in industry but instead is part of the regulation producing system of government we have to live under, it sure is easy to pour scorn on those who have to face the burdens of increasing state control, that is imposed by our membership of the EU.
At base all of these regulations are about one thing and that is the EU taking control of government.
When the EU makes its play for and area of power it does so very quietly introducing the necessity of a joint approach to level the playing field or to introduce workers rights etc, usually the EU having taken control lies doggo for several years, the more controversial the power the longer the EU will wait before slowly introducing measures to fully implement its power. As can be seen in the Constitution, which baldly states that EU Law will be superior to State Law, this is something the ECJ took as a power many years ago, but it has never been a treaty agreement, and never accepted in all member states. However an argument against it now appearing in the constitution is rebutted by cries of unfair, this has been the case for years and no one has so far complained! This approach of course ignores the fact that no one has had a chance to complain, or in fact been allowed to give their opinion on the matter.
However the report used by LTD from the BCC says nothing about the overall effects of the EU on British industry or their stance on the EU regulations in general, it simply points out that there were fewer regulation in the year in question. This in itself is misleading because much of the EU regulation needed to impose its will on member states has already taken place within its sphere of authority influence or competence. Also there is the little know directive (98/34/EC) which installs the process to continue to work through the EU standardisation bodies which would continue to produce “European standards” but, instead of these then being turned into EU directives and regulations, this new directive required the various national standardisation bodies (such as the British Standards Institute) to confer “the status of a national standard to these standards” and “to withdraw any conflicting national standards.” So this is part of the hidden on going regulations. That is precisely what has happened with the new electrical rules, which are going to have a devastating effect both on electricians and their customers.
But even so by the end of 2002, the body of binding secondary legislation adopted by the European institutions amounted to 97,000 pages of the Official Journal. Bringing the total of new
regulations since Britain joined in 1973 to101,811.
As to gold plating, this is really not the point, if the EU were not so intent upon regulating everything in sight there would be no chance for our own government to gold plate the regulations, it is also not purely an EU matter, we still seem to be in this dream world scenario that our governments are not part and parcel of the EU institution, when self-evidently they are.
That other countries decide not to implement the EU directives is an admission that the whole system is not working, if for instance the French Government were to finally implement Directive 98/58EC of 20 July 1998 “concerning the protection of animals kept for farming purposes”, which entered into force 8 August 1998 with a final date for implementation of 31 December 1999, we might well see a different story emanating from the French people. The directive would have the affect of outlawing one of the French greatest culinary achievements Foie Gras, the directive required animals to be fed “a wholesome diet which is appropriate to their age and species” and which is fed to them “in sufficient quantity to maintain them in good health and satisfy their nutritional needs”. The Article also adds that: “No animal shall be provided with food or liquid in a manner… which may cause unnecessary suffering or injury”.
Other provisions of the directive also outlaw the use of cramped individual cages, known as epinettes, in which geese and ducks are confined at the end of the fattening process. In combination, these provisions effectively ban the force-feeding of geese, on which the production of foie gras depends.
Yet, despite implementation already being five years overdue, the agriculture ministry gave the country’s 6,000 producers an extra five years - until 2010 - to scrap the epinettes, while apparently ignoring completely the provisions on feeding - arguing that the Directive was “just a recommendation”.
The British parliament has accepted that “about half of all legislation with a significant impact on business, charities or the voluntary sector is introduced to implement European Union decisions with the proportion varying considerably from one policy area to another.”
This of course does not even touch on the costs of all this regulation, which the BCC calculates as a burden on business of compliance with existing regulations introduced since 1998 is already £30 billion. Also our very own EU Commissioner Peter Mandelson has said the benefits to Britian from its membership of the Union are outweighed by the costs of implementing the regulations.