No, this is not going to work

EUObserver is one of several media outlets with a story of the 95 Conservative MPs who have come up with another great whizz:

In the letter, made public on Sunday (12 January), 95 Conservatives (out of a total of 225) stated that the House of Commons should be able to block new EU legislation and repeal existing measures that threaten Britain's "national interests".

A national parliament veto power would allow the UK to "recover control over our borders, to lift EU burdens on business, to regain control over energy policy and to disapply the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights".

Dear Members of the House of Commons and others who think this is such a good idea. Please read the Consolidated Treaties and the various bits of legislation that have put those treaties into law in this country. We cannot do this. Unless the treaties are re-written for which we need an IGC and unanimity among the member states or come out of the EU, creating a completely different structure, Parliament cannot decide which parts of EU legislation it accepts. And that does not even deal with the Regulations and Decisions that are directly applicable and never hit Parliament at all.

Sovereign as sovereign does

This posting by Zero Hedge tells us little new about the push for further fiscal integration but there are a couple of points that need to be raised. First of all, the author and many of the comments once again show their misunderstanding of the European Union and its unique structure; instead they reach for inappropriate historic parallels and bleat about the Fourth Reich, which it is not and is not likely to be.

Secondly, it talks about countries having to be prepared to cede sovereignty whether to the EU or to Germany. What sovereignty? Since the existence of the EEC, its laws have been superior to national laws; any part of national legislation and taxation (such as VAT) that the EEC/EC/EU has chosen to control it controls with no possibility of the national legislature throwing anything out. This has been made clear over and over again. Which part of it is so hard to understand?

Legal base for the control of bankers' bonuses

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (a frequently appearing character on this blog) put down the following Written Question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government under what Articles of the European Union treaties the new European Union rules restricting bankers' bonuses are being implemented; and whether there are any plans to introduce such restrictions in other industries or in the public sector.

For once the answer was clear and informative:

The Capital Requirements Directive IV proposals on remuneration are based on Article 53(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. There are currently no specific legislative proposals for the introduction of similar measures in other industries or the public sector.

Especially, not the public sector, I'd say. What deprive those poor innocent little regulators of their bonueses? Fie, I say, fie.

Looking the relevant Article up in the CONSOLIDATED VERSION OF THE TREATY ON THE FUNCTIONING OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, I found the following apparently irrelevant text:

1. In order to make it easier for persons to take up and pursue activities as self-employed persons, the European Parliament and the Council shall, acting in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure, issue directives for the mutual recognition of diplomas, certificates and other evidence of formal qualifications and for the coordination of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the taking-up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons.

How on earth does this apply to bankers, who are not self-employed, let alone their bonuses? Nothing for it, I sighed, let us have a look at the relevant Directive proposal.  As ever, it gives a great deal of information, including relevant aspects of the Basel agreement, which is rarely mentioned in the various discussions, and says this in Section 3.3:

3.3. The EU's right to act and justification

The legal bases for EU level action in this specific field are: Article 53 TFEU (former Article 47 CE) which provide the EU legislature with the possibility of adopting directives for the coordination of the provisions concerning the taking-up and pursuit of activities as self-employed persons and the provision of services in the Internal Market,  and Article 114 TFEU according to which the European legislator can adopt "measures for the approximation of the provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States which have as their object the establishment and the functioning of the Internal Market." The European legislature has discretion as to the method of approximation which is the most appropriate in order to improve the conditions for the establishment and proper functioning of the Internal Market. This may include the approximation of national laws concerning the type and level of administrative sanctions to be imposed.

While I remain unconvinced about the relevance of Article 53, it is clear that Article 114 gives the European legislature a carte blanche in its anxiety "to improve the conditions for the establishment and proper functioning of the Internal Market". I notice this was omitted from the answer given to Lord Stoddart of Swindon.

May one enquire how our Prime Minister or what passes for one intends to renegotiate that?

Physician heal thyself?

This is actually quite funny and both stories come from the ultra europhiliac (unashamedly so, unlike some other organizations I can think of) EU Business.

As people who have been following news from the EU know, the rather ridiculous plan to make a forty per cent quota for women on boards of listed companies mandatory has been shelved for the time being. (I shall be watching comments on this posting carefully and there may well be some banishments for utter stupidity. You have been warned.)

However, the amusing part of it is that the ECB has been hoist by the same petard.

European lawmakers snubbed the EU's leaders on Thursday when they voted down the leading candidate for a key European Central Bank post to protest a lack of women candidates for the job. Recognised on all sides as well qualified, Luxembourg Central Bank head Yves Mersch lost out after a series of sharp exchanges over the representation of women at the top level of European political and business institutions.

Forty per cent. gentlemen?

It ain't over till it's over

And that could apply to just about everything: the euro, the Coalition government, the Greek economy (no, I guess, that one is over) and the latest Irish referendum vote, which will not require a second one as it went the "right" way.

Our chaps are not giving up, though. I had the following e-mail from Anthony Coughlan of The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre, which is the leading eurosceptic group in that country:

Dear Friends,

The item below may interest you in that it seeks to draw attention to the constitutional challenge which is taking place in the Irish Courts to the ratification of the European Stability Mechanism Treaty and the Article 136 TFEU amendment of the EU Treaties which authorises the ESM Treaty for the Eurozone.

This constitutional challenge has been launched by an Independent member of the Irish Parliament (Dáil) for Co.Donegal, Mr Thomas Pringle. His case is due for hearing in the High Court in Dublin on 19 June.

There are also constitutional challenges to the ESM Treaty in Germany and Estonia. The item below is a copy of a letter to the German Ambassador in Ireland requesting him to urge his Government not to ratify the ESM Treaty until the issues raised by Deputy Pringle have been adjudicated on by the Irish Courts.

The letter sets out the reasons for regarding the ESM Treaty and the Article 136 TFEU amendment in so far as it authorises that treaty as in breach of the EU Treaties and in violation of the Irish Constitution.

Similar letters have been sent individually to the Ambassadors in Ireland of the other EU/Eurozone countries which have not yet ratified the ESM Treaty or approved the Article 136 TFEU amendment.

Here is the letter itself:

FROM: 


The National Platform EU Research and Information Centre 
24 Crawford Avenue 
Dublin 9 
Ireland 
Tel.: 00-353-1-8305792 


 Friday 1 June 2012 


 Your Excellency, 


I am writing to you on behalf of this organisation to request you to draw your Government’s attention to the fact that the proposal to ratify the European Stability Mechanism Treaty as it stands and to approve the Article 136 TFEU amendment to the EU Treaties as authorizing the Stability Mechanism envisaged in the ESM Treaty, are unlawful under the EU Treaties and are therefore unconstitutional in Ireland and the other EU Member States. 


I am writing on similar lines to the Ambassadors to Ireland of the other EU Member States which have not yet ratified the ESM Treaty or approved the Article 136 TFEU amendment. 


You are doubtless aware that there are constitutional challenges to the ESM Treaty and the Article 136 TFEU amendment in your own country, in Estonia and in Ireland. In this country Independent Dáil Deputy for Donegal Mr Thomas Pringle has launched a constitutional challenge on these matters which opens in the Irish High Court on 19 June. 


We are informed that Deputy Pringle’s lawyers are seeking a constitutional referendum in Ireland on the ESM Treaty. They are also claiming that the EU Treaties should be amended under a different provision of the Art.48 TEU treaty revision procedure than that being currently used if the ESM Treaty as it stands is to be lawfully ratified under EU law. 


Deputy Pringle’s legal action is seeking to defend the principle that the EU is an entity governed by the rule of law in face of a political attempt to change the EU treaties by subterfuge and to open a way to transforming the present EMU into a fiscal-political union for the Eurozone. 


While my colleagues and I are not involved in Deputy Pringle’s action, we and many other Irish people share his concerns that the integrity of the existing EU Treaties and the Irish Constitution be upheld in face of the attempt by some Eurozone Governments effectively to take the Eurozone captive for their own ends and to organize the Economic and Monetary Union on quite different principles from heretofore by means of this ESM Treaty. 


May we respectfully request you therefore to urge your Government not to proceed with your country’s ratification of the ESM Treaty or approval of the Article 136 TFEU authorisation until the Irish Courts have ruled on the issues raised by this constitutional action. 


The reasons which lead us to believe that the ESM Treaty as it stands is illegal under EU law and unconstitutional in Ireland are the following:- 


1.) Article 3 TFEU of the EU Treaties which have been agreed by all 27 EU Member States provides that monetary policy for the countries using the euro is a matter of “exclusive competence” of the EU as a whole. It is not therefore open to the 17 Member States of the Eurozone to attempt effectively to diminish the competence of the Union and to establish among themselves a Stability Mechanism entailing a €700 billion permanent bailout fund to lend to Eurozone governments as envisaged in the ESM Treaty. 


This ESM fund, to which Ireland would have to make significant contributions for the indefinite future, would trench profoundly on monetary policy for the euro area. The Stability Mechanism envisaged in the ESM Treaty is effectively an attempt to find a way round the “no bailouts” provision of Article 125 TFEU, whereby it is forbidden for the EU to take on the debt of Member States or for Member States to take on the debt of other Member States. It also breaches other EU Treaty articles. 


The ESM Treaty if ratified as it stands would effectively amount to an attempt to open a legal-political path to what France’s President Nicolas Sarkozy called for last November, namely “A Federation for the Eurozone and a Confederation for the rest of the EU”. 


A radical step of this kind, which would transform the Economic and Monetary Union from what it has been up to now, may only lawfully be taken by means of the “ordinary” treaty amendment procedure of Art.48.2 TEU. It cannot lawfully be done by means of a mere Decision of the European Council of Prime Ministers and Presidents under the “simplified” treaty amendment procedure of Art.48.6 TEU. 


The latter procedure is meant to deal with minor technical amendments to the treaties, but it is currently being used by the governments of the 17 Eurozone countries in an attempt to alter radically the character of the EMU by ratifying this ESM Treaty as it stands. 


2.) How can it be lawful for the ESM Treaty to permit a permanent ESM loan fund to be established for the 17 Eurozone countries when the express terms of the Article 136 TFEU amendment, agreed by all 27 EU Governments, authorises a Stability Mechanism only if that is established unanimously by the Eurozone States, as the general provisions of EU law require, viz: “THE Member States whose currency is the euro may establish a stability mechanism to be activated if indispensable to safeguard the stability of the euro area AS A WHOLE ” (emphasis in capitals added)? 


The Art.136 amendment to the EU Treaties does not say that “Member States”, meaning SOME of them, may establish a Stability Mechanism, but rather “THE Member States”, namely ALL of them (In French “LES” Membres rather than “DES” Membres). 


Yet the ESM Treaty which has been concluded among the 17 provides that the Stability Mechanism it envisages may come into being once States contributing 90% of the capital of the proposed fund have ratified the treaty. 


The eight largest Eurozone States, a minority of the 17, can therefore establish this Stability Mechanism, while other Eurozone States that may need assistance from it badly are excluded. How then can this be a Stability Mechanism “for the euro area as a whole”, as Article 136 TFEU, which still has to be constitutionally approved by all 27 EU Member States, requires? 


Likewise the so-called "Fiscal Treaty" - the Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the EMU – on which Irish voters have just voted and which cross-refers to the ESM Treaty, provides that it can come into force when it is ratified by 12 Eurozone Members. Does not this treaty also require unanimous ratification by all 17 Eurozone Members before it can be lawfully binding on them under EU law? 


3.) How can the ESM Treaty be lawfully ratified by July 2012, as is the stated intention of the 17 Eurozone governments concerned, when the Article 136 TFEU amendment to the EU Treaties authorising a Stability Mechanism does not have legal effect, once it has been constitutionally approved by all 27 EU Member States, until 1 January 2013? 


Does not this mean that any treaty purporting to establish an ESM before 2013 must be legally void? ESM Treaty No.1 which was signed by Eurozone Finance Ministers in July 2011 but was never sent round for ratification, conformed to the 2013 time-frame set by the Art.136 TFEU authorisation, whereas ESM Treaty No. 2 which was signed by EU Ambassadors on 2 February 2012 does not. 


This shows again how the exigencies of a political response to the financial crisis by some Eurozone States puts them in breach of EU law and therefore of the Irish Constitution. 


4. ) EU Member States may only sign international treaties that are compatible with EU law. The EU Court of Justice has made clear that intergovernmental agreements cannot affect the allocation of responsibilities defined in the EU Treaties. The provisions of the ESM Treaty and the Fiscal Treaty which involve the EU Commission and Court of Justice in the implementation of the proposed ESM go well beyond what is permissible under the current EU treaties and are therefore unlawful. 


May I inform you that copies of this letter are being released to the Irish and international media for their information regarding the concerns which are widely shared in this country that the proposed ESM Treaty is in violation of EU law and in breach of the Irish Constitution. 


Yours sincerely 
Anthony Coughlan 
Director


One wishes them all the very best of Irish (and other) luck but nobody holds out much hope that legal arguments will sway the euro-elite and the desperate promoters of the European project. Still, this is something to watch with interest.

I asked Anthony Coughlan if he had had any responses. His answer was "none of sufficient interest to merit publicising". I can well believe that.

Nothing has changed - Part 2

Let us continue with our survey of were we stand within the European Union. Here is an interesting comment from the Second Reading of Lord Pearson's Bill in the House of Lords on November 25, which you will find if you scroll down to the very end Column 1239, where Lord Kakkar is speaking:

I will concentrate on two areas: the European working time regulation and its impact on the training of young doctors and other healthcare professionals in our country; and the impact of the clinical trials and data protection directives on our ability to conduct high-quality clinical research. On the European working time regulation, there has been extensive review and discussion about its potential implications. Its purpose is well recognised, but the unintended consequences with regard to the practice of medicine are not always so well recognised.

If the working time regulation had provided demonstrable evidence of an improvement in clinical quality, the safety of patients and the training of our young doctors and other healthcare professionals, it would be a very reasonable regulation to adopt and apply to the practice of medicine in our country. However, there is little evidence that the regulation restricting hours of work to 48 per week and applying to medical practitioners in training has achieved those objectives.

Clearly there are differences between different disciplines in medicine. The craft disciplines of surgical practice such as my own require a high level of exposure to large numbers of cases in order to develop technical skills, and also a broad ongoing continuity of management of patients to develop the judgment necessary for ultimate independent consultant practice.

The Royal College of Surgeons has taken a keen interest in the potential impacts of the working time regulation on surgical training in our country. In 2010 it produced a report that looked at the potential cost implications of the application of the working time regulation with regard to surgical training. In the two years prior to the introduction of the working time regulation, it collected data using freedom of information requests that were responded to by 96 acute NHS trusts, and extrapolated the findings to the 160 acute trusts where surgical training takes place. It concluded that in the year of introduction of the working time regulation, expenditure on locum costs to cover rotas as a result of the regulation increased from some £540 million a year to £750 million-an increase of more than £200 million.

That was across the board. When the royal college looked at surgical locums, it concluded that costs increased from £170 million a year to £230 million-an extra £60 million spent on locums as a result of the application of the working time regulation restricting surgical trainees to working 48 hours a week. It also tried to determine the number of surgical hours lost per month as a result of the restriction to a 48-hour working week and concluded that some 400,000 surgical hours a month were lost as a result of the restriction. If we were paying this price for achieving an improvement in clinical care or in training, it might be completely justifiable. However, the Royal College of Surgeons and the Association of Surgeons in Training concluded that that was not the case.

The second area is the impact of European directives and regulations on the conduct of clinical research in our country. Twelve per cent of the global citations in clinical and healthcare research are of publications from United Kingdom institutions and nearly one-quarter of the 100 leading medicines in the world have been developed in our country. Biomedical research is therefore hugely important to our economy and in terms of what we can do for our own people as well as for others around the world. In January a working group at the Academy of Medical Sciences chaired by Sir Michael Rawlins published a report, entitled A new Pathway for the Regulation and Governance of Health Research,which looked at ways of ensuring that we remain competitive. It concluded that the European clinical research directive has had a detrimental impact on the conduct of clinical research in our country. The directive was introduced for good reasons-to improve ethical standards and to ensure consistency of data and, ultimately, to ensure that patients are strongly protected in all clinical research-but there have been unintended consequences which have made the approval of clinical trials much slower and the conduct of clinical trials less effective. It has also increased the cost of doing clinical trials, so much so that, in 2000, 6 per cent of all patients going into clinical trials globally came from our country while, by 2006, the number had fallen to only 2 per cent of patients going into clinical trials. That has a very serious impact on our ability to function in that area.

These conclusions were also confirmed by your Lordships' Science and Technology Committee in its second report for Session 2008-09, on genomic medicine, chaired by my noble friend Lord Patel. It also concluded that it would be important for Her Majesty's Government to review the working of the clinical trial directive and the data protection directive, which were having a detrimental impact on the conduct of clinical research in our country. I know that the Government are keenly aware of these important issues and that they are trying to address them. If a committee were established to look at the benefits and costs of our membership of European Union, consideration of the impact of European regulation on the conduct of research and the training of our doctors are important topics that should be considered.

I quoted most of Lord Kakkar's speech because it is about important matters that do not get aired frequently enough in public and because what he says shows our impotence in the face of EU regulation, whether it comes in the form of Directives or Regulations.

In his reply Lord Sassoon skated over the problems raised [half-way down Column 1256]:

The noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, referred to another area of great strength for the UK: our world-beating excellence in clinical research. He made some telling points but, on the broad point about working time regulations, I stress that the Government are committed to the view that working people should decide the hours that they work, and we will continue to make that abundantly clear to the European Commission.

Very nice, too, but how is this world-beating excellence to be preserved and developed with the insane regulations that are destroying it?

Lord Pearson said in his final summary [towards the end of Column 1258]:

I think the Minister agreed with the noble Lord, Lord Kakkar, about the working time directive and other European legislation that is damaging our National Health Service. He said that he would continue to press the Commission on this point. My final question to the Minister is: what is the point of the United Kingdom continuing to press the Commission on these and other burdens that come from Brussels? With 8 per cent of the votes in the Council, there is nothing that we can do to reverse them and we will not do so.

Quite so. Has that changed at all in the last few days? I think not.

Oh goody!

EU Business tells us that copyright on recordings will now be extended to 70 years from 50 years because performers now live longer and find that when they have retired they no longer get the income they used to. Or something like that. Of course, quite a few of them never retire and appear again and again to bore us to tears. (I await the wrath of Mick Jagger and Paul McCartney fans.)

The commission had proposed extending the royalty rights to 95 years, in line with the United States, but EU governments decided on a 70-year period.

The new rules were adopted by the EU on Monday despite opposition from Belgium, the Czech Republic, the Netherlands, Luxembourg, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia and Sweden.

EU states will have two years to incorporate the new rules into their national legislations.

Presumably, we can now await extension of copyright after their death to benefit their families, in line with the infamous droit de suite.

And the answer is?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon, a man who appears frequently on this blog, put down a perfectly reasonable Written Question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Henley on 6 June (WA 57), what assessment they have made of the proportionality and subsidiarity of a European Union-wide ban on plastic bags.

The Written Question to which Lord Henley had replied on June 6 had been:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the possibility raised by Mr Janez Potocnik, European Union Environmental Commissioner, of a European Union-wide ban on plastic carrier bags.

Well, it is hard to tell from the Ministerial Response what the assessment might be:

The Commission is currently consulting on a number of possible options for the reduction in the use of plastic carrier bags.

We will be engaging in this consultation.

Right, so what is HMG's assessment of the rules of proportionality and subsidiarity involved? Or in other words, should the matter of plastic bags be an EU competence or, for that matter, though that is not part of this question, government competence at all? Who knows? Not Lord Henley, who produced the following response, drafted for him by his very fine civil servants:

We are currently assessing the options proposed in the Commission consultation on a reduction in the use of plastic bags. These issues will be considered as part of the government response.

How long will they go on assessing?

Oh dear!

A very swift reaction to an article on the Freedom Association website about the EU Bill, going through the House of Commons as we speak and Amendments tabled at Committee stage. I have not seen the exact wording of the Chris Heaton-Harris's Amendment and am, therefore, relying on the article for information.

The article displays a certain lack of knowledge. For instance it starts with the words

Today Parliament has a chance to back amendments to the European Union Bill, and give the British people and Parliament the power to stand up to the EU.

Ahem, we are talking about the House of Commons merely and Parliament consists of two Chambers. Recent experience tells us that the House of Lords is much more likely to stand up to the British government, never mind the EU (which even an amended EU Bill is not going to make possible).

Secondly, on the basis of this article it would appear

One of the amendments being tabled by Chris Heaton-Harris says that for any decisions made at a European Council summit, transferring powers away from Britain to the EU, firstly the Government must make a statement in the House, and secondly the proposed EU legislation can only pass through an Act of Parliament. This would give Parliament time for additional scrutiny, and act as a bulwark against the present unsatisfactory situation.

I see TFA is hedging its bets, referring to a European Council summit. It's either one or the other and what it is is a European Council. The Prime Minister makes a statement after each one but very little of the actual legislation is decided at those Councils as Mr Heaton-Harris, having been an MEP for some years, ought to know. Clearly, even this amendment is not going to try to make EU legislation, which is decided between those Councils by and large, inferior to British legislation.

UPDATE: I note that the author of the article has (after my comment) changed Parliament to House of Commons, which is accurate.

Cross-border health care

Just today I have been told again by somebody who thought he was very superior and sarcastic in his comments (for arguments they cannot be called) that the EU was not the enemy (true, it is the political class) and, really, what is all the fuss about. Has the House of Commons really voted away more powers recently, he asked with a smirk, and told me that his comments would probably leave me very angry. Actually, I said, determined ignorance leaves me full of contempt rather than anger.

When people genuinely do not know but ready to find out I am equally ready to explain. I am also very sympathetic to those who say they have enough trouble making their living and bringing up their family to have any time for rooting around in those boring EU documents. But when I hear somebody who is convinced he (or she, there are no gender differences in this) knows so much better than hopeless rubes like all those eurosceptics about politics and sneers in a superior fashion while refusing to find out the most basic facts, contempt becomes the most appropriate reaction.

On the subject of powers moving away: EurActiv reports

Despite opposition behind the scenes, plans to let Europeans seek medical treatment in other countries in the 27-country bloc surged forward Tuesday (21 December) when EU countries gave their stamp of approval.

The deal, reached at ambassador level (Coreper), paves the way for a vote in Parliament on 19 January and increases the chances the cross-border healthcare directive could be in force as early as 2013.

Coreper is the Committee of Permanent Representatives, possibly the most powerful body in the EU.

On the whole 2013 sounds a bit optimistic to me. There will be many hurdles to get over and even if the Directive is in place it will have to be implemented in the Member States and who knows what the situation will be by then.

As it happens, I think we shall do quite well out of this as a number of European countries have better hospital care and are ahead of the NHS in various treatments. For all of that, this will not be an example of a bilateral or, even, multilateral agreement between various countries. This will mean control over healthcare moving over to the EU. I am quite sure that the House of Commons will, if it comes up, vote the necessary legislation through and I am equally sure that I shall still get sneering comments about my obsession with power seeping over to the EU.

Food Standards Agency again

I apologize for returning to this wearisome subject but it seems to me that the FSA and its future clarify many of the issues connected with quangos and the Cleggeron Coalition's attitude to them, not to mention the ease with which people can be fooled into believing good tidings. As this blog has pointed out here and here the great hurrah that went up when the abolition of the Food Standards Agency was kind of announced was extremely premature. Indeed, since then we have been "reassured" that the Agency was not going to be abolished but certain changes in responsibilities for implementing EU regulations (though it is not put quite like that normally) will be made.

This morning I received the August edition of the Food Trader for Butchers (another left-over from past employment with the Countryside Alliance) and found this article on page 3: FSA Future Now Clarified Indeed, it is.

Speculation that the Food Standards Agency was about to be abolished was finally squashed by a Downing Street announcement on 20th July. There will, however be major changes in responsibility.

Food nutrition policy, an area that the Agency notoriously struggled to get to grips with, is being transferred back to the Department of Health along with around 70 senior civil servants. Critics of the FSA were always quick to point to the disastrous and ill-fated battle with the food industry over traffic light labelling. Others, including many butchers, often pointed out the weaknesses in their simplistic messages such as "eat five a day" or less fat/salt/sugar etc.

I find it quite endearing that anyone can suppose that simplistic and often erroneous messages will cease if the same regulators/civil servants will now work in the Department of Health rather than the Food Standards Agency. As for labelling, that remains entirely in the EU's not so capable hands and it is there that the traffic light version was voted down.

Another major change will be the transfer back to DEFRA of policy matters relating to food labelling (where not related to food hygiene) and also food composition regulations such as meat content in sausages.This means that DEFRA will now oversee the introduction of Country of Origin labelling.

A separate article on page 9 of the publication tells of the vote in the European Parliament on the subject. The National Federation of Meat and Food Traders is fully aware of how much of the regulation their members have to obey comes from the EU. Being a lobbying and advisory organization it passes no political judgement on that, merely try to get the best deal for their members and explain what each piece of legislation implies for them. Even so, it is odd that there is no direct mention of the EU in this article, unless the author assumed that every reader will know.

The changes are no altogether welcome to butchers, it seems, as they will create more work for them.

This will create extra work for industry because instead of dealing with one Government department on the massive new Food Information Regulations they will now have to deal with two.

Another complication is that these changes only affect the FSA in England.The FSA branches inWales, Scotland and Northern Ireland will continue to report on all current matters to the devolved authorities and this is likely to cause much confusion.

And why not?

Caroline Spelman, Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (these titles become more and more meaningless with each government) is, naturally enough, pleased.

It makes perfect sense to bring policy on food origin and associated labelling to Defra to sit with wider food policy.The Government has made very clear its commitment to clear and honest labelling - particularly origin labelling.

These changes will allow the FSA to focus on food safety and it is right that this should stay in the hands of an independent body.

It would appear that the Government is still having problems in making its commitment to a clear and honest admission about where competence lies.

Real federalism

One of the misapprehensions about the EU is that it is or aims to be a federal state. In actual fact it aims to be a unitary state with a few rights and privileges left to the members. That is still a long way down the line and there is a strong probability that the whole project will implode before it reaches that point.

The obvious country to look at if we want to see real federalism is the USA, despite the gradual accumulation of power by the federal as against state polity. Much of President Obama's term so far has been spent on trying to transfer even more power to the centre but it looks like this may not go as easily as was hoped.

One of the interesting outcomes of this Administration's and this Congress's behaviour has been the strengthening of the right and, in particular, the populist right. That, in itself, has produced an interesting and ever more ferocious debate as to how conservatism differs now from the past, a debate that could not even begin to happen in Britain at the moment. But that is for another posting.

Right now I should like to call my reader's attention to the fact that the State of Missouri has voted against an important part of Obamacare, that of mandatory health insurance, preferring to leave matters to individuals or organizations rather than the state.

James Taranto explains:

Official election returns show that citizens of the Show Me State voted overwhelmingly--71% to 29% in favor of Proposition C, a ballot measure described in a pre-election report from Time magazine:

"The specific issue boils down to this: Can the government require that citizens buy health insurance? Mandatory insurance is a key element of the health care reforms passed by congressional Democrats and signed by Obama this year. Adding healthy people to the insurance pool spreads the cost of policies for people with health problems. Missouri's referendum rejects that mandate by asking voters whether state laws should be amended to forbid penalties for failing to have health insurance."

Time describes the vote as "largely symbolic." Other states have already passed such opt-out laws via legislative action rather than voter initiative, and the real test will come in the courts. But symbolism matters. If the constitutional question is a difficult one, it's possible that judges will resolve it on the side of public opinion. And of course the public's reaction to ObamaCare is likely to influence the politicians who have control over its implementation and possible repeal.

For the moment, as Neo-Neocon says, the White House prefers to ignore the will of the people, pretending that this vote matters little, if anything. Here is her posting on the Missouri vote in which she adds:

[NOTE: Other states are planning similar votes on the individual mandate. Legal scholars seem to be saying such states’ rights protest votes are unenforceable and merely symbolic. Although I’ve seen many articles that mention this, I’ve seen no actual discussions on the merits, nor links to such discussions. If more states go the Missouri route, I would imagine we’ll see more debate on the subject.]

Other states are taking a different route, preferring legal challenges. One of them is Virginia where the first hurdle has been overcome.

Judge Hudson of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia denied a motion by the federal government to dismiss a suit filed by Virginia challenging the mandatory health insurance provisions of the ObamaCare law. Similar motions to dismiss are pending in other district courts.

I don't want to get involved in the difficult subject of US constitutional law or the whole problem of Obamacare. All I am suggesting is that similar actions would not be possible in the EU. It is not and does not intend to be a federal state.

This should keep everyone happy (not!)

Lord Stoddart of Swindon has been pursuing a number of issues with the Cleggeron Coalition, otherwise known as Her Majesty's Government. For example, he asked about the money spent by the Commission on propaganda or media output (but I repeat myself):

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford on 12 July (WA 96) about the payment of journalists by the European Commission, what assessment they have made of the impact of that policy on public opinion of the European Commission.

The reply that came through Lord Howell was everything we have learnt to expect from the "transparent" new government:

At a time when both citizens and Governments across the EU are reining in their spending, the EU institutions should be more rigorous in making sure that they get the maximum value out of every euro of taxpayers' money that they spend. I am confident that the majority of public opinion in the UK would agree with me that paying journalists is not a good use of EU funding.

Probably not, though the Commission might consider that paying journalists to produce propaganda in the guise of news and opinion is value for money. The question is what assessment has the government made of the whole process and, more to the point, will anything be done about it. This is, after all, our money.

On to the subject of that blue flag with the gold stars. Readers of this blog will recall a certain recent contretemps about whether the flag should or should not be flown. The Daily Mail said that the UK was fined £150 million for failing to fly the flag and displaying the logo, the Daily Telegraph quoted an EU official who denied the story.

A spokesman said: "The EU has not fined the UK GBP150m and most definitely not for 'not displaying the EU flag'.

"There are legal provisions adopted by the EU member states (the UK included) that ask them to comply with certain minimum requirements on publicity and this includes the display of the EU logo on a permanent plaque.

"However, there have been no issues with the UK in this respect."

The ERDF requires any project accepting its money to display the EU flag on a permanent plaque in a prominent position.

No issues with the UK presumably means that the rule is obeyed and adhered to in every particular. Furthermore, stories that appear in the Daily Wail ought to be treated with some caution.

What is the status of the EU flag. It was, as readers will recall, taken out of the Constitutional Lisbon Treaty thus making it completely different and dispensing with the need for a referendum. According to the official blurb

It is the symbol not only of the European Union but also of Europe's unity and identity in a wider sense. The circle of gold stars represents solidarity and harmony between the peoples of Europe.

As soon as everyone has recovered from nausea and worse we can carry on. The same site informs us that the 12 stars have nothing to do with the number of member states (I should think not, there being 27) but is a symbol of "perfection, completeness and unity". What it does not tell anyone is that the symbol was used by the Council of Europe before the burgeoning European state appropriated it. For once, Wikipedia is a much better source of information. The article gives the list of the many ways in which the number 12 is assumed to be of importance.

The flag may not have been in the treaty but its importance as a symbol of European unification continues to exist. Unfortunately, the people of the various countries do not see it as anything but a flag that needs to be flown from time to time according to some legal requirement.

We come back to Lord Stoddart's question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the United Kingdom can be compelled to fly the European Union flag or use prescribed logos.

Astonishingly enough Her Majesty's Government saw fit to give some information in its reply:

The Department for Communities and Local Government (CLG) is the managing authority for the European Development Fund (ERDF). Among other things under EC Regulation 1828/2006, Article 7(2), CLG is required to fly the EU flag for one week from 9 May from the front of its premises. There are two flag poles outside the departmental building of Eland House, and it is the policy of the department always to fly the United Kingdom's Union Flag in the superior position.

Article 9 of the same EC regulation requires that all information and publicity aimed at beneficiaries, potential beneficiaries and the public generally includes the EU emblem, a reference to ERDF and a statement highlighting the added value of the intervention of the Community, in accordance with set graphical standards. In addition, Article 69(1) of EC Regulation 1083/2006 requires that all member states, which act as managing authorities for EU funded programmes, ensure that projects highlight the role of the EU.

Two whole Regulations (which are, allow me to remind everyone) that deal with the need to promote the image and importance of the EU in our lives and to emphasise its benevolence though not, perhaps, the rules whereby all EU money (and Britain is a net contributor) has to be matched by national or local funds even though it is the EU that decides on the validity of the project.

EC Regulation 1828/2006 rejoiced in the catchy title of

COMMISSION REGULATION (EC) No 1828/2006

of 8 December 2006

setting out rules for the implementation of Council Regulation (EC) No 1083/2006 laying down general provisions on the European Regional Development Fund, the European Social Fund and the Cohesion Fund and of Regulation (EC) No 1080/2006 of the European Parliament and of the Council on the European Regional Development Fund

Let us have a look at the Article quoted by the noble Minister (or Sir Humphrey's minions who had been detailed to answer the pesky question). Article 7 (on p. 14 of the pdf version) deals with

Responsibilities of the managing authority relating to information and publicity measures for the public

Section 2 in full states:

The managing authority shall be responsible for organising at least the following information and publicity measures:

(a) a major information activity publicising the launch of an operational programme, even in the absence of the final version of the communication plan;

(b) at least one major information activity a year, as set out in the communication plan, presenting the achievements of the operational programme(s) including, where relevant, major projects;

(c) flying the flag of the European Union for one week starting 9 May, in front of the premises of each managing authority;

(d) the publication, electronically or otherwise, of the list of beneficiaries, the names of the operations and the amount of public funding allocated to the operations.

It is not clear whether apart from that one week the blue flag with the golden stars does not need to be flown. If so, why on earth is it always there outside the managing authorities?

So we come to the original Regulation, 1083/2006, for which the Rules were set out in the long Regulation quoted above. While the original Regulation consists of 54 pages, the one that sets out the Rules is 163 pages long. I think this is called simplification of legislation. Or so we are told.

Article 69 of the Regulation deals with - yes, you guessed it - Information and Publicity. Here we are, Section 1 lays it down the line:

The Member State and the managing authority for the operational programme shall provide information on and publicise operations and co-financed programmes. The information shall be addressed to European Union citizens and beneficiaries with the aim of highlighting the role of the Community and ensure that assistance from the Funds is transparent.

Of course, if we are talking about transparency, it would be useful, as I mentioned above, to explain exactly how the funding is managed and have the logos of all the organizations that contribute willy-nilly displayed. I wonder what the taxpayers' logo might be? Perhaps, a milch-cow.

HMG is not happy with the arrangement. How do I know? Well, there is one more paragraph in Lord Howell's response that tells one so:

As laid out in my department's press release of 7 July 2010, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is keen to challenge the complicated and over-bureaucratic rules and to avoid penalties being imposed for minor infringements of the regulations-such as for not displaying the EU emblem. Furthermore, he is urgently reviewing how these funds are managed and distributed to make sure that taxpayers' money is used wisely.

Who decides what is wisely and how is the Secretary of State going to change EU rules? We await answers with bated breath.

Missing the point

Lord Willoughby de Broke asked on Tuesday about the large combustion plants directive about which he had written on epolitix, expressing his view that the implementation of the directive (which, apparently, we have to do despite being told that Parliament is the sovereign legislator)"could mean lights out for Britain".

The European Union's Large Combustion Plant Directive (LCPD) came into effect on January 1, 2008. It sets limits on the amount of sulphur dioxide, nitrogen oxide and dust particulates that coal- or oil-fired generating plants may emit. All these plants must comply by January 1, 2016 either by meeting the limits set out in the directive, or 'opting out' by reducing their total operating time to 20,000 hours by the end of 2015 and then shutting down.

As with so much EU legislation, this is well-meaning who could reasonably object to reducing environmentally harmful emissions? but is likely to give the UK serious difficulties in retaining adequate generating capacity for its needs. Under the LCPD, 14 power stations, generating 25 per cent of the UK's current energy requirements, would have to close by the end of 2015.

A leaked 2009 Whitehall briefing paper prepared for MEPs warned that the LCPD 'raises potentially serious issues about security of electricity supply'. In other words, the lights could go out under the LCPD's deadlines. The government's concerns have been echoed by the Confederation of British Industry, who stated that: 'Businesses want to help air pollution, but this directive must be implemented in a way that doesn't undermine the UK's energy security'.

So what is HMG's attitude? The Starred Question was:

To ask Her Majesty's Government what are their intentions as regards the large combustion plant directive and the generating plants concerned.

HMG's response, given by Lord Henley was tight-lipped:

My Lords, the Government's intention is that all combustion plants in the UK which are subject to that directive should comply with its requirements.

Lord Willoughby persisted, even suggesting that British legislation should be carried out by the British Parliament for the good of the British people.

My Lords, I am grateful for that frank Answer. However, can the Minister confirm that, under the provisions of that directive, 25 per cent of the UK's generating capacity is due to close down by 2015? Would it not be preferable for the United Kingdom's energy policy to be made by the Government and the Parliament in this country rather than contract it out to the European Commission?

Lord Henley dealt with that by simply ignoring it:

My Lords, I cannot confirm the noble Lord's figure; I would not accept that it will be as high as 25 per cent by 2015. I accept that a number of plants are so dirty in their emissions that they will have to close in due course, but I can confirm that other generating capacity is coming on stream in time to replace those that will close.

All a little vague, as was the rest of the debate, which consisted of several rather well-meaning comments (if somewhat catty at UKIP's expense) about certain problems being international and needing international solutions and, of course, everybody's health will be so much better if we get rid of the nasty emissions. Of course, people's health may take a turn for the worse if there is not enough power to provide everyone with light and heat but that is not going to happen. No, no, no.

Lord Pearson raised the subject of fuel poverty and the Minister deliberately misunderstood the question, pretending that it was about unemployment. When put right, he simply assured everyone that electricity prices will not go up by nearly as much as is feared. Of course, if they do, Lord Henley is not likely to be called to account for misleading the House.

Memo to the Cleggeron Coalition

It occurred to me that I should send a memo to the Cleggeron Coalition every time I find something that they might be interested in and clearly know nothing about. Well, maybe not every time but every third time or so.

Today's memo is about food regulations. I am still on the Food Standards Agency's mailing list for consultations although I no longer represent any stakeholders. What should pop into my inbox today but a note about a consultation Enforcement of the European Parliament and Council Regulation on Food Flavourings (England). There will be similar consultations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. The FSA's role is to enforce these Regulations that are directly applicable.

I just thought they would like to know.

But you see, it is the EU that decides on food labelling

Periodically we get Conservative politicians and the Coalition government promising to do such things about food labelling though what they are they know not. For the sad fact is that food labelling has been EU competence for many years and a long unrolling "consolidation", which has produced, is producing and will produce many far-reaching EU Regulations has been negotiated for years by the Food Standards Agency (an unaccountable quango), which is also in charge of implementing those Regulations. And being Regulations they are directly applicable and do not require Parliamentary legislation.

It so happens that as the negotiations for the Food Standards Agency went on (history detailed here on the Agency's site) I was working with various small food producers, cheese makers and, especially, small and medium-sized slaughter houses and meat processors. The work, which resulted in a report on the meat industry and the threats it faced, published in 2000 by the Countryside Alliance, was two-fold: we aimed to clarify the problems and make people aware of them and to save small(ish) food producers. Our success rate on both counts was variable.

In the midst of it all the Food Standards Agency was being set up, ostensibly in response to various food safety crises in Britain but, more importantly, because it was known that the EU was setting up its own institution, the European Food Safety Authority.

EFSA’s remit covers food and feed safety, nutrition, animal health and welfare, plant protection and plant health. In all these fields, EFSA’s most critical commitment is to provide objective and independent science-based advice and clear communication grounded in the most up-to-date scientific information and knowledge.

EFSA’s goal is to become globally recognized as the European reference body for risk assessment on food and feed safety, animal health and welfare, nutrition, plant protection and plant health.

EFSA’s independent scientific advice underpins the European food safety system. Thanks to this system, European consumers are among the best protected and best informed in the world as regards risks in the food chain.

Just recently there was a good deal of rejoicing because the Coalition has announced that it might abolish the Food Standards Agency. There was an article in the Guardian that caused all that excitement and rejoicing and the subject came up in the House of Lords during a Starred Question asked by Lord Krebs, erstwhile Chairman of said organization, despite the fact that he is actually an ornithologist.

One can make several interesting comments in connection with both the article and the breif debate in the Lords. Firstly, there is no certainty that the FSA will be abolished; secondly, if it is the people who work in it will simply be parcelled out between various departments and will then, almost certainly, be seconded to a special unit, which will probably find itself in the already existing offices. This pattern, one suspects will be repeated in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Thirdly, there is an assumption that as we have problems with people eating unhealthy food and, perhaps, with obesity, the existence of the Food Standards Agency is vital though, as it happens, no evidence is produced that the situation has, in any way, improved during that body's existence.

Fourthly, there is still a body of opinion out there that is convinced that the main purpose of all food producers is to poison its customers and only the wise and all-seeing government can prevent that dire outcome. Fifthly, and most importantly, no discussion of the FSA mentions the words European and Union, though everything it deals with is EU competence and, as long as we are in the EU there will have to be a body that will negotiate those laws and regulations and implement them. Incidentally, the FSA makes no secret of this and any journalist could have found out the truth by looking on the website.

The European Commission issued a proposal for a new Food Information Regulation on 4 February 2008. This proposal follows an EU-wide review of both general food and nutrition labelling legislation, which began in 2004.

The Food Standards Agency (FSA) has been representing the UK at Experts' Group meetings during the development of this proposal. Interested parties letters providing summaries of these meetings can be found at the links below.

The proposal will bring EU rules on general and nutrition labelling together into a single regulation which will simplify and consolidate existing labelling legislation. Eventually the regulation will be directly applicable in all Member States, and replace current UK law.

The adoption and publication of the proposal is the first step in the development of the regulation. Not only does the regulation have to be agreed between the 27 members of the Council but the European Parliament has to approve the text.

The FSA will represent the UK during the negotiations in the European Council, which are expected to start later this year, and will be actively engaging with stakeholders across the UK.

The FSA Board will consider the proposal in May 2008 and the UK position will then be agreed in discussion between Government Departments in Westminster and between the FSA and departments in the devolved administrations.

This is a complex process and we will be using this webpage to update stakeholders as progress is made in the negotiations on the proposal.

That seems to me to be clear enough to be understood by all but somehow this clearly explained state of affairs remains hidden from most politicians and journalists.

One of the pleasant after effects of my work with food producers and retailers is that I still receive the bi-monthly Speciality Food Magazine. I read it and sigh for the days spent working with the food industry. Then I recall the many meetings I had to attend as a stake-holder at DEFRA and smile with the thought that I no longer have to do so.

The July-August issue has a couple of short notes about the decision by the European Parliament to get rid of the so-called "traffic light" system of telling consumers about the dangers inherent in the particular item of food they are buying. As these notes are not on the website, I shall copy them out:

EU Favours GDA Labelling

Following a multimillion-pound lobbying campaign by manufacturers, MEPs have rejected plans for the compulsory introduction of 'traffic light' nutrition labels. The European Union has instead opted for the rival Guideline Daily Amounts (GDA) scheme, which expresses nutritional content as a percentage of recommended daily intake. This will be introduced on a mandatory basis. The rejection has caused some controversy because independent research previously revealed that consumers found the system the simplest and most informative way to make healthier choices about the foods they buy.

Further on in the magazine there are comments from small retailers who give various opinions on the subject.

Setting aside the "multimillion-pound campaign", which so horrifies readers of the Grauniad who clearly do not bother to find out whether it was put together by small or large producers. After all, any new regulation hits small producers much harder and they tend to campaign against them through various organizations.

Let us also set aside those "independent" researchers who were almost certainly funded by various consumer organizations who usually have an agenda of their own and the welfare of consumers is not it.

The important thing to remember is that the decision on what kind of labelling to use is made by the EU, in this case one of the Toy European Parliament's committees and that decision will be mandatory for British firms. No if, no buts.

Open Europe's meeting on the AIFM Directive - 1

My intention was to write just a single posting on that meeting but I got carried away in the previous one about Open Europe's pamphlet and certain pronouncements about the euro. This afternoon, however, Open Europe and Policy Exchange hosted a joint meeting at J. P. Morgan's rather grand conference hall in Moorgate, on the subject of the AIFM Directive, at present still stuck in a trialogue between the Council, the European Parliament and the Commission.

A trialogue, incidentally, is now an accepted part of EU legislation, another stage of negotiations conducted between the three institutions behind closed doors in order to speed up the process of imposing laws and regulations on the member states and their people. It is, as the European Commission points out, part of the complicated codecision process. If you scroll down past all the various stages and actions, you find this explanation:

“Informal trialogue”: the true negotiating forum

The briefness of the periods laid down by the Treaty for reaching an agreement, combined with the complexity of dossiers and the constricted timetable make it necessary to organise work on an informal basis upstream of conciliation. Thus, the negotiators frequently meet well in advance of the opening of formal conciliation. These meetings, mostly on a trilateral basis, constitute informal trialogues at technical or political levels, with a limited number of participants in the interest of effectiveness. For the European Parliament, the participants are the chairperson of the delegation, the chair of the parliamentary committee and the rapporteur, assisted by members of the European Parliament's conciliations secretariat and, if necessary, a member of the European Parliament's legal service. For the Council, the permanent representative of the Member State holding the Council Presidency is assisted by members of the Council's secretariat, including its legal service.

Lastly, the Commission is represented in the trialogues by the Director-General of the department in charge of the dossier, assisted by experts, its legal service and Secretariat-General. The participants in the trialogues operate on the basis of negotiating mandates given to them by their respective delegations. They explore possible avenues of compromise in an informal manner and report to their delegations. Informal technical trialogues may also be organised, attended for the most part by the three institutions’ experts and secretariats.

In other words, it is often at this "informal" stage that the final wording of far-reaching pieces of legislation is hammered out. Then again, it is not as simple as it might seem as a House of Lords European Union Report on Codecision and National Parliamentary Scrutiny, published in July 2009 pointed out

Informal trilogues are private meetings between representatives of the European Parliament, Council and Commission which take place at each stage of the codecision procedure. Contrary to popular belief these meetings are not small. Although numbers vary, usually they are attended by the Parliament's rapporteur, shadow rapporteurs and support staff, staff from the Council Presidency and staff from the Commission. In total there may be some 20 to 40 people in attendance. They are a vital part of the codecision procedure because they allow frank, face-to-face discussions between those leading on the Proposal under discussion from each of the Institutions. But, as M Léglise-Costa told us, they are preceded by even more informal contacts between the rapporteur and Presidency at which the real decisions can be made: "there is a lot of preparation before the actual negotiation in order to assess with the Parliament ... what is the right way to proceed" (Q 83). In terms of a record, the Parliament requires a report back to the responsible committee. We understand that the Council Secretariat produces a summary of the discussions which it circulates to the Representations of the Member States.

I am sure that makes everyone feel a good deal better.

As the same Report pointed out among its various Conclusions:

109. We consider that informal trilogues, whilst helpful to expeditious agreement of legislation, make effective scrutiny of codecided legislation by national parliaments very difficult. There are two reasons for this:

(a) Their informal and confidential nature is not transparent: as a result it is difficult for us to follow the course of negotiations and comment usefully to the Government; and
(b) The Council is represented only by the Presidency which tends to hold its cards close to its chest: as a result it may be difficult for all governments other than the Presidency to follow the course of negotiations and to represent the views of their national parliament at the appropriate point. (paragraph 60)

Bear in mind that scrutiny that is much discussed is not actually legislation, merely the ability to read the forthcoming legislation some time before it is actually passed. Even that is made difficult by the endless layers of informality added to the formal process, already complex enough, and the purported need for speed, which came up in this afternoon's discussion.

However, I seem to have digressed again and shall have to write about the meeting and discussion in yet another posting.

Oh please, not again!

I am experiencing a sense of déjà vu. Yesterday I was writing about the Common Fisheries Policy and Conservative incompetence and hypocrisy; members of a Russian spy-ring have been put on trial in the United States and today I find this headline in the Evening Standard: "Warning that levy will ‘devastate’ London’s art market". Yes, it's our old friend the droit de suite.

London's 's art market will be devastated if action is not taken to block the imposition of a European levy on sales, its leaders warn today.

A delay in imposing the tax on resales of modern art negotiated by the last Labour government will run out in 2012.

And the British Art Market Federation said action must be taken now to extend the delay or abolish the levy, known as droit de suite, as collectors will otherwise sell in Switzerland or New York to avoid the extra charges.

Reuters tells us that

British auction houses fear that an EU levy on works of art by the likes of Pablo Picasso and Henri Matisse, due to be introduced in 2012, could undermine their position as world leaders in the field.

Here are a few links to postings I have done on the subject: September 2008, April 2008, where I list the considerable amount of literature I have produced on the subject over the years, January 2006 and December 2005. Groundhog day anyone?