Blenderlaw

european union bill January 12, 2011

Posted by Bradley in : eu, Uncategorized , 1 comment so far

MPs were arguing (and arguing… they carried on for hours) about parliamentary sovereignty yesterday. Proponents of amendments to the European Union Bill to strengthen and emphasise parliamentary sovereignty (they lost) are most bothered by the EU itself (characterised by one speaker as having “tentacles”) and by judges who don’t seem to know their place (and who should see themselves as subject to removal by MPs if they don’t behave themselves). Here’s Bill Cash:

The threat comes not only from the common law radicalism of such judges but from the EU law itself, which claims constitutional supremacy over member states’ constitutions. We have also seen cases of terrorists appearing to get away with things and people not being deported when they should have been, as well as a whole range of other matters occurring under the European Human Rights Act, which, as I have said, is mirrored by the new charter of fundamental rights in the Lisbon treaty. We are witnessing a vast increase in the volume and impact of such legislation on the British people, and this is resulting in the anxieties I have described. Those anxieties could be allayed by my amendments, however, and it is time for us to turn the tide and make it clear exactly where we stand.

But Malcolm Rifkind made a pretty good point when he said:

The sovereignty of Parliament was not created by an Act of Parliament, and it has never depended on an Act of Parliament. How can its restatement in an Act of Parliament given any real added value to its legitimacy?

And others noted press reports suggesting the whole thing is a matter of shadow-boxing or smoke and mirrors. And, although Dennis MacShane tried to inject some truth about what the UK’s membership really involves:

I put it gently to hon. Members that they should be careful before getting what they wish-the disaggregation of the European Union, with every country rejecting European Court of Justice decisions that they do not like. France believed that it was sovereign when it refused to accept a pound, or a kilo, of British beef, at the time when the whole world thought that the beef was contaminated. We could not export it to Australia, and Canada would not accept it. The Commonwealth would not have it. Hong Kong, our Crown colony, would not have it. But the European Union had to accept British beef because the European Court of Justice accepted our scientific arguments that the beef was fit for sale in the common European market

the debate involved a lot of rhetorical flourishes and veered between competition to see who could quote more Latin to discussions of dead parrots. Not an inspiring read. And not a great legitimation of the concept of parliamentary sovereignty either.

the uk, the eu, supremacy and parliamentary sovereignty December 7, 2010

Posted by Bradley in : eu , add a comment

The House of Commons European Scrutiny Committee gets to grips with the circularities in the EU Bill (for example the irony of a Bill purporting to reinforce Parliamentary Sovereignty while requiring referenda for future inroads on sovereignty) in a report published today. There’s a rather forceful conclusion:

the Explanatory Notes are misleading when they state .. that the clause has been included “to address concerns that the doctrine of Parliamentary sovereignty may be eroded by the courts”. Clause 18 is not a sovereignty clause in the manner claimed by the Government, and the whole premise on which it has been included in the Bill is, in our view, exaggerated. We are gravely concerned that for political reasons it has been portrayed by the Government as a sovereignty clause in correspondence and also in the Explanatory Notes, which we discuss below. For these reasons we deeply regret that the Secretary of State’s refused to come and give evidence himself on these matters…The Explanatory Notes present as fact what the evidence we have received tells us is disputed, viewed from any perspective. We are concerned about the precedent this sets for future Explanatory Notes. Minimal research reveals the depth of the division of opinion on whether Parliamentary sovereignty is a common law principle .. as it does whether Parliamentary sovereignty can ever be put on a statutory footing. Yet, astonishingly, none of this is reflected in the Explanatory Notes. In addition, the case law which they quote-Macarthys and Thoburn-fails to include relevant passages of the judgments of Lord Denning and Lord Justice Laws and so gives a distorted impression.
Explanatory Notes are, we assume, drafted with care; they may be used to illustrate the context and mischief of an enactment, even if they are not approved by Parliament, and this would apply in relation to clause 18. All the more reason then that they should be drafted to reflect the status quo, rather than to present a partial opinion.

house of lords committee says seasonal workers proposal does not satisfy subsidiarity October 13, 2010

Posted by Bradley in : eu , add a comment

In its report, the House of Lords EU Committee states:

The need for seasonal workers is, as the Commission says, “a common occurrence in most Member States”. However the needs of Member States all differ as regards the numbers of workers needed, the times at which and for which they are needed, the work for which they are needed, and many other matters. Additionally there are differences between Member States as to whether their needs for seasonal workers can be satisfied primarily by workers from other Member States (as is the case with the United Kingdom), or whether they need to rely mainly on third country nationals. Article 79(5) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union recognises that the volume of admissions to their territory of third country nationals is a matter for determination by the Member States.
.. Because of these differences, we believe that the entry to and residence in each Member State of third country nationals as seasonal workers can be and should be governed primarily by a combination of these market factors and of the policy of each State towards the admission of such workers. Action at
EU level does not seem to be necessary.

animal welfare in the eu October 1, 2010

Posted by Bradley in : eu , add a comment

There’s a conference today and tomorrow, and a new web game called Farmland, which I haven’t tried, but which is meant to teach kids that animals are sentient beings and:

which aims to help tomorrow’s citizens to make informed choices about the food they will be buying when they grow up.

From a quick look it doesn’t seem that the game is designed to promote vegetarianism, but to encourage looking after farm animals well until they become our food.

The Commission held a Big Competition of Drawing for Children 6-13 years old Animal Welfare is Freedom (note the euro-english). The theme of the Competition was “Making Animals Happy”. By coincidence, this week I read James Wright’s A Blessing for the first time.