Kenneth Clarke, a former Tory home secretary, said the proceedings were "a complete outrage" and the Government was treating the Commons with "intolerable contempt".Amazing that MPs (especially arch-Europhile Kenneth Clarke) should get so worked up about being sidelined in this debate, when Parliament has been completely cut out of the picture on so many matters by the EU, is often ignorant of where power now lies, and while its decline continues apace.
Other MPs expressed anger at being cheated of consideration of the new legal moves before being asked to approve the Prevention of Terrorism Bill. But attempts to force the suspension of the Commons to allow time to consider the changes were unsuccessful.
March 01, 2005
Commons Sidelined, Again
The Home Secretary, Charles Clarke, is reported to have caused outrage in the Commons when it became apparent that amendments to the Prevention of Terrorism Bill, will be introduced in the House of Lords. The Commons will be unable to debate them, and the limited debate they were allowed yesterday had to be conducted in ignorance of what they would be.
February 28, 2005
Fairtrade Critique
Nice post on Fairtrade by Alex Singleton on the Adam Smith Institute blog, explaining how counter-productive Fairtrade is (even if it does relieve middle class guilt).
Neigh To Horse Passports
Horse owners face fine or jail from today if they do not have passports for their animals. The passports are required by the EU to control the quality of meat entering the human food chain - they eat horses on the continent.
According to the Telegraph, while half a million passports have been issued, anything up to half a million animals do not yet have a passport, which must be shown when moving premises, entering competitions, breeding, etc.
The government has twice delayed implementation of the law, because so few people had acquired the passports: once in January 2004, and again in June 2004.
The government says that if Britain does not comply with the law to the EU Commission's satisfaction, the Commission may withdraw approval for around 60% of veterinary medicines.
So what does it mean?
It means Britain can no longer make the law for itself, because our government is no longer competent to decide this matter, and there is now no one Parliament can bring to account and force a change if the policy and law on horse passports is thought to be unsatisfactory.
And it suggests that the most effective form of resistance to unwelcome bureaucratic laws which do not have general support is to ignore them. The horse passport requires a certain amount of cooperation among horse owners if it is to work.
Notice too, that it is the UK government that gets the flak for failing to derogate from the EU regulation: the principle of subservience to EU law is not questioned, and nor is the EU criticised for creating the regulation in the first place.
According to the Telegraph, while half a million passports have been issued, anything up to half a million animals do not yet have a passport, which must be shown when moving premises, entering competitions, breeding, etc.
The government has twice delayed implementation of the law, because so few people had acquired the passports: once in January 2004, and again in June 2004.
The government says that if Britain does not comply with the law to the EU Commission's satisfaction, the Commission may withdraw approval for around 60% of veterinary medicines.
So what does it mean?
It means Britain can no longer make the law for itself, because our government is no longer competent to decide this matter, and there is now no one Parliament can bring to account and force a change if the policy and law on horse passports is thought to be unsatisfactory.
And it suggests that the most effective form of resistance to unwelcome bureaucratic laws which do not have general support is to ignore them. The horse passport requires a certain amount of cooperation among horse owners if it is to work.
Notice too, that it is the UK government that gets the flak for failing to derogate from the EU regulation: the principle of subservience to EU law is not questioned, and nor is the EU criticised for creating the regulation in the first place.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)