Booker tells how Bowland Dairy Products Limited was forced out of business when the Curd Cheese (Restriction on Placing on the Market) Regulations 2006 made it illegal for the company to trade.
The regulations specifically applied to Bowland Dairies and to no other company, and were intended to force them out of business. Section 3 says, "No person shall place on the market any curd cheese manufactured by Bowland Dairy Products Limited ...".
The regulations were made because there was no legal way of forcing Bowland to stop trading: Bowland had broken no law and were causing no harm, so there was no reason to take them to court, and no prospect of success if they had been.
Parliament did not vote on the regulations, and no one in Parliament was inclined to force a vote on the regulations. There was a short debate in the House of Lords nearly two months later, in which some Lords expressed their concern at what had happened, but that was it.
The UK Government made the regulations because the EU told it to. The EU had decided in its wisdom that Bowland's curd cheese production was unsafe and Bowland should be banned from trading: but this was in the face of findings to the contrary by the UK's Food Standards Agency after its own investigations, and despite Bowland's clear vindication in the matter by the European Court of Justice.
It shows there is nothing the UK Government is not willing to do in its abasement to the EU.
It is a case of rule by administrative fiat and the unaccountability of EU institutions.
Bowland's treatment contravenes the principle of the rule of law - where legislation is framed in terms of general principles applicable to everyone equally.
And above all, it is a clear example of Parliament's failure to uphold the liberties of the British people, and of Parliament's willingness to allow those liberties to be trampled all over. The House of Lords may briefly have mentioned Bowland, but the Curd Cheese regulations banning Bowland were raised in the Lords only on the understanding that they would not be voted on.
As I have said before on child booster seats, Parliament cannot challenge the EU on even the smallest point without challenging the very principle of EU power. But what happened to Bowland Dairies is not a small point. What on earth is it going to take to wake up the mother of Parliaments?
December 14, 2006
December 05, 2006
A UK Roads Market Please, Not Rationing
Rod Eddington's scheme for road pricing sounds more like road rationing.
Circumscribed by a desire to reduce not just congestion, but emissions, what is missing is a mechanism for increasing supply in accordance with demand - i.e. a roads market.
Circumscribed by a desire to reduce not just congestion, but emissions, what is missing is a mechanism for increasing supply in accordance with demand - i.e. a roads market.
What Britain Must Do To Stop Immigration
The UK government has said that long term immigrants to Britain will have to pass tests in English language and the British way of life.
So you might think the government has concluded that immigrants need to integrate and not live in their own closed communities? With the implication, perhaps, that large-scale immigration poses risks to Britain?
And yet the most substantial immigration is currently from the EU's Eastern European member states, especially Poland. A recent estimate is that maybe 10,000 East European immigrants arrive each week at London's Victoria coach station alone: half a million each year for the last three years, with no sign of a let up, and with Romania and Bulgaria about to add to numbers when they join the EU on 1st January.
No citizens from EU member states can be compelled to learn English or take a test on the British way of life (for what that is worth).
The government has no intention of stemming the tide of immigrants deluging Britain, whatever harm immigration may cause: to do that Britain would have to withdraw from the EU.
So you might think the government has concluded that immigrants need to integrate and not live in their own closed communities? With the implication, perhaps, that large-scale immigration poses risks to Britain?
And yet the most substantial immigration is currently from the EU's Eastern European member states, especially Poland. A recent estimate is that maybe 10,000 East European immigrants arrive each week at London's Victoria coach station alone: half a million each year for the last three years, with no sign of a let up, and with Romania and Bulgaria about to add to numbers when they join the EU on 1st January.
No citizens from EU member states can be compelled to learn English or take a test on the British way of life (for what that is worth).
The government has no intention of stemming the tide of immigrants deluging Britain, whatever harm immigration may cause: to do that Britain would have to withdraw from the EU.
November 17, 2006
Time to Leave the EU?
If you are one of the many people who think it's time to leave the EU, today you have a chance to help bring that about!
The 10 Downing Street website has an online petition you can 'sign' calling for a referendum on the UK's continued EU membership.
If that's what you want, go and do it now!
The 10 Downing Street website has an online petition you can 'sign' calling for a referendum on the UK's continued EU membership.
If that's what you want, go and do it now!
October 03, 2006
Parliament Refuses to Discriminate Over EU
This week new age discrimination legislation came into effect. So, hard on the heels of the child booster seat law, the government introduced another EU law without Parliamentary scrutiny.
True, it has been a long time brewing, but the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 were laid before Parliament on 9th March, and nodded through the Commons on 28th March, and then the Lords on the 30th March.
On the 27th March, the Commons' First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation discussed the regulations for 46 minutes, and on 30th March the Lords discussed them for 32 minutes. That was it.
Not bad for legislation which the Minister responsible, Gerry Suttcliffe, said had "huge" significance, was "broad in scope", and would have "far reaching consequences." As he said, the UK regulations to implement Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27th November 2000 were developed "through a process of continuous engagement with our stakeholders" - not by Parliament.
Yet again Parliament allows itself to be sidelined, fails to debate complex and far-reaching legislation, declines to challenge any aspect of a new UK law, and fails to hold anyone to account for it.
Britain's interests are represented, insofar as they are represented at all in the EU, by the UK government. The UK government does not have the power to determine EU law or policy, except in those ever-shrinking areas still reserved to national government: it can only lobby and play politics with other EU governments.
The hard truth is that unless and until Britain's Parliament is prepared to challenge the principle of EU power it has no say whatsoever over large areas of law and policy, because it has legally subordinated itself to the EU via the European Communities Act 1972.
Parliament is thus entirely unable - as is the UK government - to hold EU institutions to account, and because it is not prepared to discuss the EU critically, and assert itself at all in relation to the EU, Parliament also fails to hold the British government to account either for its own EU policy, or for the effects on the UK of EU actions.
With respect to the EU, Parliament is unwilling to discriminate between that which is in Britain's interests and that which is not. It would rather hide its head in the sand.
True, it has been a long time brewing, but the Employment Equality (Age) Regulations 2006 were laid before Parliament on 9th March, and nodded through the Commons on 28th March, and then the Lords on the 30th March.
On the 27th March, the Commons' First Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation discussed the regulations for 46 minutes, and on 30th March the Lords discussed them for 32 minutes. That was it.
Not bad for legislation which the Minister responsible, Gerry Suttcliffe, said had "huge" significance, was "broad in scope", and would have "far reaching consequences." As he said, the UK regulations to implement Council Directive 2000/78/EC of 27th November 2000 were developed "through a process of continuous engagement with our stakeholders" - not by Parliament.
Yet again Parliament allows itself to be sidelined, fails to debate complex and far-reaching legislation, declines to challenge any aspect of a new UK law, and fails to hold anyone to account for it.
Britain's interests are represented, insofar as they are represented at all in the EU, by the UK government. The UK government does not have the power to determine EU law or policy, except in those ever-shrinking areas still reserved to national government: it can only lobby and play politics with other EU governments.
The hard truth is that unless and until Britain's Parliament is prepared to challenge the principle of EU power it has no say whatsoever over large areas of law and policy, because it has legally subordinated itself to the EU via the European Communities Act 1972.
Parliament is thus entirely unable - as is the UK government - to hold EU institutions to account, and because it is not prepared to discuss the EU critically, and assert itself at all in relation to the EU, Parliament also fails to hold the British government to account either for its own EU policy, or for the effects on the UK of EU actions.
With respect to the EU, Parliament is unwilling to discriminate between that which is in Britain's interests and that which is not. It would rather hide its head in the sand.
September 21, 2006
Child Booster Seats And The EU
Boris Johnson waxes indignant at the new law on child booster seats, imposed as a result of an EU directive four years ago.
After picking holes in it, he says the measure was not discussed by the Commons' European Standing Committees, and even had it been it would have made no difference (which is a way of rationalising the failure to discuss the measure).
He goes on to say:
In the areas in which they pass power to the EU, our politicians - and hence the British people - have no say in what the EU does. And because there is no mechanism for our politicians to change EU law, they cannot then challenge the EU on even the smallest point, the most trivial item, without challenging the very principle of EU power.
None of our political parties, and only a very few of our elected politicians, are prepared to challenge the principle of EU power, and so they will not challenge even the silliest things the EU does.
Our politicians prefer not to consider EU laws at all, lest they are forced to face just how unpopular and at odds with British interests the things the EU is doing may be, and their own cowardice and betrayal as they continue to sit on their hands and refuse to act. It is harder to avoid responsibility if there has been a carefully considered debate in which all the shortcomings of a piece of EU legislation have been revealed, so they don't debate them.
Which is why the EU continues in its unaccountable way, and as the EU grows British politics and politicians both matter less to the British people, and are at the same time held in greater contempt.
It still remains within the power of the British people to reclaim their birthright - independent self-government over themselves through their own Parliament - but only if we and our politicians wake up, and soon.
After picking holes in it, he says the measure was not discussed by the Commons' European Standing Committees, and even had it been it would have made no difference (which is a way of rationalising the failure to discuss the measure).
He goes on to say:
We need proper standing committees with the power to mandate ministers, and to refuse to accept directives ... Otherwise we will find that the law of this country ... is not made in this country; and that is a perfect and justifiable reason for massive civil disobedience.Boris Johnson is not facing reality - the law of this country is not being made in this country now. The reason being that our politicians have abdicated responsibility for it.
In the areas in which they pass power to the EU, our politicians - and hence the British people - have no say in what the EU does. And because there is no mechanism for our politicians to change EU law, they cannot then challenge the EU on even the smallest point, the most trivial item, without challenging the very principle of EU power.
None of our political parties, and only a very few of our elected politicians, are prepared to challenge the principle of EU power, and so they will not challenge even the silliest things the EU does.
Our politicians prefer not to consider EU laws at all, lest they are forced to face just how unpopular and at odds with British interests the things the EU is doing may be, and their own cowardice and betrayal as they continue to sit on their hands and refuse to act. It is harder to avoid responsibility if there has been a carefully considered debate in which all the shortcomings of a piece of EU legislation have been revealed, so they don't debate them.
Which is why the EU continues in its unaccountable way, and as the EU grows British politics and politicians both matter less to the British people, and are at the same time held in greater contempt.
It still remains within the power of the British people to reclaim their birthright - independent self-government over themselves through their own Parliament - but only if we and our politicians wake up, and soon.
August 05, 2006
Media's Qana Photo Shame
Do you believe what you read in the press?
Does an emotive photograph overwhelm dry facts, or the need to look for them?
If you want an insight into media manipulation, take a look at this stunning analysis of the Qana photographs that were published after many people were killed, apparently by an Israeli airstrike on July 30th.
Not all was as it seemed. The Western media appear to have connived in a stage managed Hezbollah event calculated to squeeze the maximum shock and emotional punch from tragedy. By going along with the charade, a big question mark must be raised over what really happened at Qana in the first place, and Hezbollah's part in it.
EU Referendum blog's initial take on the Qana photos resulted in a denial by the press agencies, but that denial failed to detail an alternative interpretation, or provide any further evidence. Now Richard North has fully exposed the agencies' shameful secret.
What credibility - or integrity - the mainstream media now?
Does an emotive photograph overwhelm dry facts, or the need to look for them?
If you want an insight into media manipulation, take a look at this stunning analysis of the Qana photographs that were published after many people were killed, apparently by an Israeli airstrike on July 30th.
Not all was as it seemed. The Western media appear to have connived in a stage managed Hezbollah event calculated to squeeze the maximum shock and emotional punch from tragedy. By going along with the charade, a big question mark must be raised over what really happened at Qana in the first place, and Hezbollah's part in it.
EU Referendum blog's initial take on the Qana photos resulted in a denial by the press agencies, but that denial failed to detail an alternative interpretation, or provide any further evidence. Now Richard North has fully exposed the agencies' shameful secret.
What credibility - or integrity - the mainstream media now?
February 09, 2006
Menezes Investigation Flawed From The Start
A shocking revelation about the investigation into the shooting of Jean Charles de Menezes on the London tube at Stockwell last July comes at the end of this BBC report about how the Menezes family are being kept informed.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission chairman, Nick Hardwick, says that although the IPCC has had full access to those in agencies outside the police, the IPCC does not have power to refer those who do not work for the police to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Since I am not aware of any police criminal investigation into the shooting, it looks as if those outside the police who might have had criminal liability may never be considered for prosecution: not only will the IPCC refrain from putting together the pieces it has with respect to them, but it may not even have bothered to collect the pieces in the first place, and who else will have done so instead?
It suggests the IPCC is inadequate to deal with cases where the police are not the only party to a possible crime.
The Independent Police Complaints Commission chairman, Nick Hardwick, says that although the IPCC has had full access to those in agencies outside the police, the IPCC does not have power to refer those who do not work for the police to the Crown Prosecution Service.
Since I am not aware of any police criminal investigation into the shooting, it looks as if those outside the police who might have had criminal liability may never be considered for prosecution: not only will the IPCC refrain from putting together the pieces it has with respect to them, but it may not even have bothered to collect the pieces in the first place, and who else will have done so instead?
It suggests the IPCC is inadequate to deal with cases where the police are not the only party to a possible crime.
February 02, 2006
The Hard Case of PC Mark Milton
It is wrong that PC Mark Milton is to have his acquittal by District Judge Bruce Morgan last May set aside and be retried.
I can understand how people could be unhappy that a policeman is acquitted after driving at 159 mph along a motorway, and perhaps even more so given that he drove at 91 mph in a 30 mph zone.
The High Court has set aside the aquittal because it considers the District Judge failed to take into account the possibility of danger to other road users who, had they been there, might have been endangered had they pulled into PC Milton's path. This is said to be a failure of the judge "in law".
If it was a failure of law rather than fact, it is one that is very close to a finding of fact, because implicit in the finding is the suggestion that had the judge taken such a hypothetical into account it would likely have been enough to have changed the judge's finding that PC Milton's driving was not in fact dangerous. From the reports it seems the High Court were very worried about PC Milton's driving - in other words the finding as a matter of fact that his driving was not dangerous.
It would be surprising to me if the judge had not taken the possibility into account and dismissed it, even if it did not form part of the reasons explicitly given by the judge to the High Court. Was it not, for example, even alluded to by the prosecution during the case?
The other aspect of the hypothetical is of course what PC Milton's reaction would have been had another driver appeared, when events would have shown how safe his driving was. We can never know, although perhaps that is just as well.
The High Court is really saying, in contradiction to the finding on the facts of the judge, that speed is itself ipso facto dangerous, irrespective of the absence of any evidence, other than the speed itself, that any danger was ever actually caused to anyone.
Why though should PC Milton be put through this? He was tried and judged and found not guilty. In the absence of any evidence of corruption of the court process that should be that. How many bites at the cherry should the prosecution get? The opportunity to revisit inconvenient or embarrassing acquittals is just the tool any vindictive, over-bearing, authoritarian, or otherwise illiberal state will wish to have.
If people think the police are out of control, then the answer is to regain control and accountability of the senior officers.
If people think the district judge made a perverse decision on the facts, then be thankful for judicial independence.
If people think PC Milton's judge really did make a mistake in law, then let there be a process for declaring what the law really is: there is no need to revisit PC Milton's acquittal in the process.
If people think the law itself is wrong, let Parliament change it.
I can understand how people could be unhappy that a policeman is acquitted after driving at 159 mph along a motorway, and perhaps even more so given that he drove at 91 mph in a 30 mph zone.
The High Court has set aside the aquittal because it considers the District Judge failed to take into account the possibility of danger to other road users who, had they been there, might have been endangered had they pulled into PC Milton's path. This is said to be a failure of the judge "in law".
If it was a failure of law rather than fact, it is one that is very close to a finding of fact, because implicit in the finding is the suggestion that had the judge taken such a hypothetical into account it would likely have been enough to have changed the judge's finding that PC Milton's driving was not in fact dangerous. From the reports it seems the High Court were very worried about PC Milton's driving - in other words the finding as a matter of fact that his driving was not dangerous.
It would be surprising to me if the judge had not taken the possibility into account and dismissed it, even if it did not form part of the reasons explicitly given by the judge to the High Court. Was it not, for example, even alluded to by the prosecution during the case?
The other aspect of the hypothetical is of course what PC Milton's reaction would have been had another driver appeared, when events would have shown how safe his driving was. We can never know, although perhaps that is just as well.
The High Court is really saying, in contradiction to the finding on the facts of the judge, that speed is itself ipso facto dangerous, irrespective of the absence of any evidence, other than the speed itself, that any danger was ever actually caused to anyone.
Why though should PC Milton be put through this? He was tried and judged and found not guilty. In the absence of any evidence of corruption of the court process that should be that. How many bites at the cherry should the prosecution get? The opportunity to revisit inconvenient or embarrassing acquittals is just the tool any vindictive, over-bearing, authoritarian, or otherwise illiberal state will wish to have.
If people think the police are out of control, then the answer is to regain control and accountability of the senior officers.
If people think the district judge made a perverse decision on the facts, then be thankful for judicial independence.
If people think PC Milton's judge really did make a mistake in law, then let there be a process for declaring what the law really is: there is no need to revisit PC Milton's acquittal in the process.
If people think the law itself is wrong, let Parliament change it.
January 11, 2006
Iqbal Sacranie Provokes Police State
Iqbal Sacranie, the head of the Muslim Council of Britain, is not my favourite man. He is not a liberal and in seeking to make laws against religious hatred a crime, he does not represent a liberal cause. He does not want Islam to suffer criticism or be the subject of debate. Our free speech will suffer if he succeeds.
Yet he has my sympathy as he faces a police investigation into remarks he made on the BBC's Radio 4 PM programme on 3rd January, when he said homosexuality is harmful.
I doubt the police will find there is a crime to prosecute, even as they try to piece one together under the Public Order Act. That crime is one the government intends to bring on later as it looks at a clutch of 'hate crimes'. Meanwhile the government presses the police to investigate all complaints of crime 'aggravated' by 'hate'.
Were there a law banning comments critical of homosexuality it would be very sad indeed for Britain, and a severe blow against freedom and free speech here. But there is no law, and it is outrageous that police are leaning on people and 'investigating' them. They should be telling the complainants where to go.
Yet he has my sympathy as he faces a police investigation into remarks he made on the BBC's Radio 4 PM programme on 3rd January, when he said homosexuality is harmful.
I doubt the police will find there is a crime to prosecute, even as they try to piece one together under the Public Order Act. That crime is one the government intends to bring on later as it looks at a clutch of 'hate crimes'. Meanwhile the government presses the police to investigate all complaints of crime 'aggravated' by 'hate'.
Were there a law banning comments critical of homosexuality it would be very sad indeed for Britain, and a severe blow against freedom and free speech here. But there is no law, and it is outrageous that police are leaning on people and 'investigating' them. They should be telling the complainants where to go.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)