Something pleasant

It sometimes feels as if the only time I manage to write pleasant posts is when I take part in the Tuesday Night Bloggers' collection (missed it this week and last but will return next week).

Today I shall break that curse and write something many will be happy to read. May 4 marks the 90th birthday of one of the longest serving and doughtiest fighters against the European project, Lord Stoddart of Swindon. He is, as I can testify from personal experience, as capable and active as ever and is greatly looking forward to the culmination of his fight. If there is any justice he will be proclaimed as one of the heroes of the independence movement - but there is no justice. Those titles we go to the busy little lads who are jumping around now. All the same, this is the time to wish Lord Stoddart a very happy birthday and many more to come.

More from the House of Lords

Tomorrow or whenever I can get through the turgid stuff they spout in Another Place, will be the turn of that place, to wit the House of Commons. Today, however, I concentrate on the House of Lords. Well, for one more posting.

One of the procedures in the House at the start of a session is the appointment of Select Committees who will then spend a good deal of time (for which the members do not get paid) studying various subjects and producing reports, which are almost invariably informative and well argued. Indeed, more attention ought to be paid to them. This blog has tried to do so but has failed miserably. Perhaps, a new resolution to that effect is in order.

The one Select Committee over which there was a debate was the European Union one and that is because Lord Pearson of Rannoch has rightly raised an objection or two, which he does every time simply because these things need to be put on record.

The following peers were named as members of the Committee but they do have the right both in full and in sub-Committees to co-opt others: B Armstrong of Hill Top, L Blair of Boughton, L Borwick, L Boswell of Aynho (Chairman), E Caithness, B Falkner of Margravine, L Green of Hurstpierpoint, L Jay of Ewelme, B Kennedy of The Shaws, L Liddle, L Mawson, B Prashar, B Scott of Needham Market, B Suttie, L Trees, L Tugendhat, L Whitty, B Wilcox.

They can all be looked up but I have to admit that on immediate perusal I can see two peers whose attitude to the European Union is mildly sceptical, a subject that both Lord Pearson and Lord Stoddart raised in the subsequent debate.

It all started with the following proposed amendment:

Leave out the sections relating to the membership of the Committee, and the power to appoint sub-committees and refer to them any matters within its terms of reference, and insert: “That the Committee have power to appoint up to two sub-committees, one of which shall deal with European Union constitutional affairs and one of which shall deal with European Union economic matters; that the membership of the Committee and its sub-committees be balanced between members who favour the United Kingdom leaving the European Union and those who favour staying in it.

Setting aside the question as to how many sub-committees there ought to be, which is a somewhat esoteric point, let us look at what Lord Pearson said about the membership:

Noble Lords appear to be aware that in recent years I have regularly raised the balance, effectiveness and number of our European Union Select Committees before we agreed their appointment. For students of this important but perhaps refined subject, I last raised it on 16 May 2013 at col. 544 and on 12 June 2014 at col. 528.

As to balance, this proposed new committee appears to be just as Europhile as its predecessors. I do not pretend to know all their views, but of its 16 members I can detect only three who I would describe as mildly Eurosceptic and six who are among the most ardent Europhiles in your Lordships’ House. This is more important than usual in a year when we are approaching an EU referendum. Your Lordships’ other Select Committee reports are widely respected, and if our EU reports suffer from a Europhile slant, that will not be helpful to any fair outcome. I want to put the public on alert now, and I hope that I do not have to come back to this point too often in future.

I admit that the second part of my amendment, that our committees should be balanced between those who want to leave the EU and those who want to stay in, will not be easy to achieve. I put it down to underline what a Europhile place your Lordships’ House is when compared to public sentiment on this matter. In fact I can think of only perhaps a dozen of your Lordships who would be prepared to say publicly that we should leave the European Union whatever the outcome of the current negotiations. However, we should at least try to make our committees as balanced as we can, and at the moment we do not.

He is not wrong about the membership though I have always found that the Committee's and the various Sub-Committees' reports rather more critical of HMG and of the EU than the membership of those bodies would suggest. In fact, I seem to recall being asked on the BBC Russian Service how it was possible for a Parliamentary Committee to produce quite such a hard-hitting and critical report as the one on HMG's and the EU's preparedness to the Ukraine crisis was.

Lord Pearson's other point about the usefulness of those discussions and reports is sadly true. In the first place, as I have pointed out too many times to count, scrutinizing legislation is not quite the same thing as legislating or being able to reverse legislation.

Going on from there:

Our committees are there to hold the Government to account on the legislation that emerges from Brussels—that is what I am constantly told by noble Lords who favour the present arrangements. However, the trouble remains that that is all that these committees can do: they can only scrutinise, and the Government regularly ignore their findings.

I remind your Lordships of the scrutiny reserve, whereby successive Governments have promised not to sign up to any piece of legislation in Brussels if it is still being scrutinised by the Select Committee of either House of Parliament. Yet since July 2010, the Government have broken that promise 303 times in the Commons and 266 times in your Lordships’ House. Some 238 of those overrides were on measures being considered by both Houses. Each override means that a new EU law is being forced upon us without the consent of Parliament, because the EU juggernaut rolls on regardless. I hope the respected chairman of our EU Select Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Boswell, will not mind if I remind your Lordships of his disappointed interventions on that subject on 4 December 2014 at col. 1400 and on 17 December 2014 at col. 95. I do not know if he can reassure us now that, as a result, the scrutiny reserve is no longer broken.

I fear that our EU Select Committees do not and cannot hold the Government to account in Brussels. Since 1996, up to last year, the Government themselves have objected to and forced to a vote in the Council of Ministers 55 new measures, and they lost the vote on every single one of them. I add that the situation is just as depressing in that democratic fig-leaf, the European Parliament. Of its 1,936 most-recent Motions, a majority of all UK MEPs voted against 576 of them, but 485 still passed—a failure rate of some 84%. So it does not seem that our Select Committee reports carry much weight there either. None of that should surprise us. The big idea behind the EU has always been that member states should be diminished in favour of the unelected bureaucracy, under the pretence that that would maintain peace in Europe, which was of course, in fact, always sustained by NATO, not Brussels—but that is still at the root of our powerlessness in the EU.

I may add that though Lord Pearson's other points were debated, this highly important one, about powerlessness was not discussed.

Another non-reply from HMG

I am not sure how I feel about an English Parliament, being firmly opposed to yet another layer of government and bureaucracy but there are arguments to be made for a true federal structure of the four countries that make up the United Kingdom with special arrangements with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man. At the very least, we can discuss it as a possible post-EU structure.

Oddly enough, HMG has not the slightest interest in doing anything of the kind unless it is a question of bribing the Scottish Assembly.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked HMG

what plans they have to hold a referendum in England to ascertain the level of support for an English parliament.

A reasonable question and one that abides by the "rules" of parliamentary questions: never ask one unless you know the answer. Sure enough, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, on behalf of HMG said:

The Government has no plans to hold a referendum in England to ascertain the level of support for an English Parliament. The Government has published a Command Paper on the implications of devolution for England which contains separate proposals from each of the Coalition parties.

Not that I necessarily want any more referendums but how is a Command Paper a substitute for a referendum in terms of popular opinion? Is that the sort of thing Professor William Wallace taught his students on the subject of government?

Mixed news from the House of Lords

Two Questions from Lord Stoddart of Swindon. The first one was straightforward as was the reply:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by Lord Deighton on 26 November (WS 37) concerning the meeting of ECOFIN on 7 November, whether they plan to continue their opposition to the proposed Financial Transaction Tax; and whether they will indicate that they will not facilitate the collection of the tax in the United Kingdom.

HMG, in the shape of Lord Deighton reassured everyone:

The UK is not participating in the Financial Transaction Tax (FTT) proposed to be adopted by 11 EU member states.

The Government strongly objects to certain extraterritorial aspects of the European Commission’s proposal, which in our view breach EU Treaty requirements.

While any eventual FTT is likely to be significantly narrower in scope than the current proposal the Chancellor has been clear that the government will not hesitate to renew its legal action against the FTT if our concerns are not addressed.

Well, that's a relief or partially so, as the chances of HMG holding out are not very strong, if past experience is anything to go by.

The second Question elicited a more intriguing reply:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Statement by Lord Deighton on 26 November (WS 37) concerning the meeting of ECOFIN on 7 November, what will be the effect of the proposed amendment to Directive 2011/96/EU; and whether it transfers further powers over taxation to the European Union.

Once again it was Lord Deighton who replied (well, to be quite precise, as these Questions were written one, the minions dealt with it all, with nary an intervention by the Minister):

The amendment to Article 1 of the Parent Subsidiaries Directive introduces an anti-abuse measure, which requires Member States to withdraw the benefits of the Directive with respect to tax arrangements, where gaining a tax advantage through exploiting the Directive is a main purpose.

UK officials have worked successfully to incorporate UK changes into the text. These ensure that the rule is proportionate, is in line with OECD recommendations on Base Erosion and Profit Shifting, and does not delegate further powers to the Commission.

I shall leave the details to the financial experts among my readers (there must be some) but would like to point out something interesting. The new rule is in line with OECD recommendations. That is in line with what the Boss has been saying for quite a long time (and it feels even longer): it is not always the EU that decides on these and related matters. There are organizations above and beyond it and the EU merely puts their rules and recommendations into place.

Sometimes one finds out things in the House of Lords

Lord Stoddart of Swindon has been busy again (and a good thing, too). He asked HMG

what was the value of United Kingdom overseas aid administered by the European Union in 2013; and what they expect the figure to be in 2014.

This blog would argue that it matters little who administers overseas aid as it is likely to lead to waste and corruption in any case and is unlikely to lead to economic development. But I digress.

HMG in the shape of Baroness Northover replied:

In 2013, the UK share of official development assistance funded from the EU budget was £813 million. UK’s contribution to the European Development Fund (EDF), a Member States voluntary fund not financed from the EU budget but also administered by the Commission, was £407 million. Estimates for the UK share of official development assistance funded from the EU budget in 2014 will be published in April 2015 as part of the provisional ODA: GNI statistics publication for 2014. The UK’s contribution to the EDF in 2014 is currently estimated to be £328 million.

That is quite a lot of money that is wasted or used to shore up corrupt and oppressive governments and organizations. Let us not forget that the UK gives money to these directly as well as through the EU and through the UN. So, we give overseas aid several times over.

One of the organizations we give aid to directly as well as part of the EU is the unspeakable UNRWA, whose purpose is to keep Palestinians in refugee camps and refugee status. It so happens that I went to a presentation on the subject a couple of days ago and intend to write about it in detail quite soon.

Back to Lord Stoddart. He also asked:

whether they will now answer the question originally asked namely, “whether they will consider recommending withdrawal from the European Union if their objectives cannot be met through negotiations”.

Baroness Anelay of St Johns replied:

The Government’s position remains the same: the European Union must reform to become more competitive, democratically accountable and fair for those inside and outside the Eurozone. The need for reform is widely acknowledged amongst the EU Institutions and other Member States.

The UK’s membership of the EU brings many benefits to the UK, including jobs and investment; a strong collective voice to negotiate free trade agreements; and greater international influence on global threats such as climate change and Ebola.

This was demonstrated at the recent European Council last October where EU leaders agreed to the 2030 climate and energy policy framework—the world’s most ambitious targets so far—as well as agreeing to increase EU financial help to fight Ebola to €1 billion.

I take it that is a no.

Really worth protecting!

Today, dear readers, we go back to the House of Lords where another of this blog's favourite people, Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked a question:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government what was the total trade deficit or surplus with the European Union in goods and services between 2010 and 2013; and what is their estimate of any deficit in 2014 to date.

There are certain advantages to asking purely factual questions that cannot be twisted too much. Even Lord Livingstone's official had to come up with some figures:

UK’s trade deficit with the European Union was £28.5bn in 2010, £21.7bn in 2011, £39.5bn in 2012 and £56.2bn in 2013. Currently, UK trade balance figures cover the period up to the second quarter of 2014. In the first half of 2014, UK’s trade deficit with the European Union was £25.5bn.

Remember those figures next time some idiot or europhiliac (but I repeat myself) tells you how vital and important Britain's membership of the EU is to its trade with the rest of the EU.

A little confusing

One gets rather confused with some of the replies HMG produces to questions put down by noble Lords in the Upper House. Take this example: Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked the following Written Question:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Taylor of Holbeach on 4 August (HL1114) [actually, September 26] about the European Arrest Warrant, whether they consider that habeas corpus can be applied in other European jurisdictions following extradition; and, if so, how.

The last few words seem to be crucial.

HMG, in the shape of Lord Bates replied as follows (and I doubt if Lord Bates fully understood what his officials wrote there):

Article 12 of the relevant Framework Decision (“Keeping the person in detention”) states that “When a person is arrested on the basis of a European Arrest Warrant, the executing judicial authority shall take a decision on whether the requested person should remain in detention”. This obliges the relevant judicial authority to take a decision on whether or not the person should remain in detention, and that must be taken in accordance with the law of the executing State. Therefore, each and every EU Member State must consider carefully whether a person can be legally detained or not. That is in keeping with the intention underpinning the principle of habeas corpus.

The Government has also introduced reforms to the operation of the Arrest Warrant that limit the unjustified detention abroad of individuals surrendered by the United Kingdom. For example, section 12A of the Extradition Act 2003 provides a bar to extradition on the grounds of “absence of prosecution decision”. This means that, in cases where the person is wanted to stand trial, extradition can only go ahead where the issuing State has made a decision to charge the person and a decision to try the person, or that the person’s absence from that State is the only reason for the failure to take the decision(s). This provision ensures that, where a State is simply not ready to try a person, extradition is refused and the person is not surrendered only to spend a potentially lengthy period in pre-trial detention.

Following our reforms, Section 21B of the same Act allows, with both the requested person’s and the issuing State’s consent, for the person’s temporary transfer to the issuing State or for the person to speak with the authorities in that State whilst he or she remains in the UK (for example, by video link). This provision ensures those who are subject to an Arrest Warrant have an opportunity to communicate with the issuing State without being surrendered. In a number of cases this may result in the issuing State withdrawing the Arrest Warrant (e.g. if it decides the person is not the person they are looking for), ensuring the minimum time possible will be spent in detention.

I think he is saying that Habeas Corpus remains important despite the European Arrest Warrant but I am not really sure.

Another non-reply from HMG

Tiresome, aren't they, those minions who ensure that Ministers do not reply to questions. Almost as tiresome as those members of the House of Lords and, again, minions who complain that too much money is spent on answering questions. Well, maybe but if you answered in the first place, there would be no repetition and no extra money spent.

Anyway, Lord Stoddart of Swindon (for it is he again) asked the following question:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government, further to the Written Answer by Baroness Warsi on 17 June (WA 37), which third countries envisage joining the European Union; and what assessment they have made of the impact of further European Union enlargement, particularly on the financing of the European Union and migration.

Seems reasonable. After all, we ought to know whatever we may think on the subject.

Sadly, Baroness Warsi's minions do not agree. It is, of course, possible that they do not know the answer themselves.

Six countries currently have been awarded Candidate Status by the European Union (EU). Of these, Montenegro, Serbia and Turkey are currently in accession negotiations. Iceland has suspended its accession negotiations. Macedonia is a candidate country but has not yet opened accession negotiations. Last month, the European Council endorsed the decision to grant Candidate Status to Albania. Two further countries are recognised as potential candidates. These are Bosnia and Herzegovina, and Kosovo.

The current governments of Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine have all publicly expressed an interest in joining the EU.

The accession process is a lengthy one, involving detailed negotiation of 35 Chapters of the EU Acquis, with candidate countries required to adapt their administrative and institutional infrastructures and bring their national legislation into line with EU legislation in these areas. Financing of the EU and migration will be addressed at several stages in this process, notably in EU Common Positions and related impact assessments by the European Commission on Chapter 2 (Free Movement of Workers), Chapter 24 (Justice, Freedom and Security) and 33 (Financial and Budgetary Provisions). We welcome the emphasis that EU Enlargement Commissioner, Stefan Fule, has placed upon economic governance in the enlargement process, which should increase economic convergence between accession countries and the EU and reduce migratory pressures.

The UK has not produced national impact assessments on EU enlargement in addition to the European Commission’s own impact assessments. As part of the Government’s review of the balance of competences with the European Union, however, reports are due to be published on enlargement and free movement of persons.

It is also true that the next stage of enlargement, if it ever happens, is so far away that not many people are worried about it. No doubt, some eurosceptics are hoping that Vlad will send his troops (assuming he can drum up enough, which seems questionable) to invade all these countries thus solving our problems.

It would be quite funny if it were not so sad

Either Lady Warsi's minions in the civil service have learnt nothing and forgotten none of their ridiculous and frequently disproved statements from the past or they have decided that parliamentary questions are of so little importance that recycling old and meaningless answers is a perfectly adequate way of behaving. Lady Warsi herself, of course, has not the capacity to understand either the questions or the answers so she must be absolved of all sin except the one of not knowing exactly what her limitations are. Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked a perfectly reasonable question that required some kind of a reasonable answer:

To ask Her Majesty’s Government whether the Prime Minister’s comments in Brussels on 27 May that Brussels was “too big and too busy” indicate that they intend to oppose any further expansion of the European Union.

After all, we know from experience that widening is not the opposite of deepening and the bigger the EU becomes the more powers are centralized as, quite clearly, a large and ramshackle collection of member states that could never work as one union need to be forced to do so. Does Baroness Warsi understand this? I very much doubt it. Do her minions in the civil service? Well, that is the big question as I asked at the beginning of this posting. In any case, their reply would be quite funny if it were not so sad:

The Prime Minister, my Rt. Hon Friend the Member for Witney (Mr Cameron)’s comment was that Brussels is “too big and too bossy”. He was referring to the need for the EU to reform to become less interfering and more competitive, flexible and democratically accountable. He was not pronouncing on the EU’s territorial size.

The UK continues to be a strong supporter of enlargement based on firm but fair conditionality, focusing on key concerns shared by many Member States, particularly around the rule of law. Enlargement has proved a huge driver of peace, prosperity and progress across our continent.

If they really believe the idiocy of that last sentence or the idea that making the EU ever larger is somehow compatible with it surrendering powers (not that there is the slightest indication of that possibility except in the Prime Minister's pronouncements) than the calibre of our civil service has clearly sunk to an all-time low. If, on the other hand, they do not believe it or do not care whether they believe it but think that any old rubbish will do in reply to a member of Parliament, albeit, the Upper House, then we need to think very seriously about the relationship between the civil service and Parliament, which will be of enormous importance when we start negotiating our way out.

The answer is no

Lord Stoddart of Swindon put down a Written Question about the BBC:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the Pollard report, they have any plans to withdraw the BBC's Royal Charter when it is next due for renewal.

To which HMG in the shape of Lord Gardiner of Kindle replied:

The current BBC Charter expires on 31 December 2016. It remains the Government's position that a Royal Charter is the right vehicle for the BBC, which is established for many good reasons, at arm's-length from politicians.

That will be a no, then.

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?

Some figures about foreign aid

These are not really the figures we want as they give no detail but, I think, we can assume that every penny is either mis-spent, embezzled or has gone towards keeping bloodthirsty kleptocrats in power.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked HMG:

what is their most recent forecast in cash terms of United Kingdom expenditure on foreign aid, including that part of it administered by the European Union, for the period 2010 to 2015.

Baroness Northover (more here) on behalf of HMG replied:

Total UK ODA spend, including the share of the UK's contribution to the European Commission which has been classed as ODA eligible, for 2010 and 2011 is provided below:

2010:£8,677 million (gross)- £8,452 million (net); and 2011: £8,841 million (gross)- £8,629 million (net).

Please note that the net figures represent expenditure net of loan capital (i.e. principal) repayments.

That's a lot of taxpayers' money to be mis-spent, embezzled and generally wasted on those kleptocrats.

Who will be allowed to take part in the campaigns?

Lord Stoddart of Swindon put down a very pertinent Written Question.

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure that measures are in place to prevent the CIA or any other United States Government organisations, or any other foreign country organisations including the institutions of the European Union, from financing or otherwise assisting organisations or individuals campaigning in the debate on the United Kingdom's position in the European Union prior to any referendum being held on the subject.

Well, I don't know about the CIA or any other US government organization: it is my impression that they have largely lost interest in Europe and its problems and were only interested in the first place because of the looming Soviet menace.

We do, however, have a potential problem with various EU institutions. As we know, they are given to providing propaganda information that, naturally enough, assists those who insist that Britain's place is firmly at the  heart of Europe and if we can't  have the heart then we'll make do with the fingernails.

Lord Wallace of Saltaire on behalf of HMG assured their Lordships that "measures are already in place". We must keep calm and carry on doing whatever it is we are doing.

Section 119 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 regulates donations to permitted participants. A donation is money, goods or services which is given:
towards campaign spending; orwithout charge or on non-commercial terms, andhas a value over £500.

Examples of donations may include a gift of money or other property, sponsorship of an event or publication or free/specially discounted use of an office.

So who are the permitted participants?

[A]n individual registered in a UK electoral register; a UK-registered company which is incorporated within the European Union and carries on business in the UK; a Great Britain-registered political party; a UK-registered trade union; a UK-registered building society; a UK-registered limited liability partnership that carries on business in the UK; a UK-registered friendly society; and a UK-based incorporated association that carries on business or other activities in the UK; a UK-registered friendly society; and a UK-based incorporated association that carries on business or other activities in the UK.

Am I the only person who can see all sorts of possibilities there for the EU to become involved? For example, what happens when one or more of those organizations start inviting Commissioners who just happen to pay their own way out of the taxpayers' money so generously supplied to them?

You mean one can trade with the EU?

Well, well. Who would have believed it. Apparently, it is not absolutely essential to be part of the EU in order to trade with it or its member states. Nor is it absolutely essential to take on every bit of legislation and regulation the EU issues (and there are many bits) in order to do that trading.

Oh surely not, I hear you cry. That is just a myth propagated by eurosceptics who live in cloud-cuckoo land or fantasy land or whatever the latest description of what it is eurosceptics inhabit is. Actually, no. It comes from the government.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon put down the following Written Question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Statement by Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint on 6 December (WS 76-7) on the European Union Foreign Affairs Council, whether the outcome of the negotiations with Japan, Canada, Singapore and Morocco will require those countries to adopt all the legislation and regulations that apply to countries in the single market.

The Statement had enumerated all the countries the EU had signed or was about to sign or hoped to sign free trade agreements.

HMG in the shape of Lord Green of Hurstpierpoint (more here) replied:

It is not the case that as a result of these trade negotiations the countries concerned will have to adopt all the legislation and regulations that apply to EU member states.

The aim of these negotiations is to eliminate, as far as possible, duties applied to trade in goods and to address non-tariff barriers that affect trade in goods in services-ie rules, regulations and practices that affect market access. Non-tariff barriers can be overcome through a variety of methods. These include the adoption of international rules, mutual recognition of approaches to testing, standards, et cetera, and commitments to end discriminatory practices.

I wonder how jobs in those countries will be affected by greater trade with the EU.

Don't hear much about this

Yes, yes, yes, I am still avoiding the subject of Thursday's resounding victory won by the Sod Off Party. Even the sight of Lord Prescott (that well known socialist and egalitarian) drooping with fury and discontent as the victorious Conservative candidate speaks cannot inspire me enough to analyze it. Maybe tomorrow, if the dinner that celebrates 20 years of the Maastricht rebellion offers sufficient cheer.

Now then. Back to the House of Lords (where there was a Maastricht rebellion of its own). Lord Stoddart of Swindon (a good egg, as readers of this blog know) asked the following Written Question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Statement by Lord McNally on 1 November regarding the European Union Justice and Home Affairs Council, what are the implications for the United Kingdom of the opt-ins to the Dublin (III) Regulations and the new EURODAC Package.

Before we look at the response we need to work out exactly what this is about and the best way of doing so is to have a look at the Written Statement made by Theresa May on November 1, about the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on October 25 and 26. (In parenthesis, I may note that at least the Minister did attend. They don't always.)

The EURODAC Package is there to facilitate the provisions of the Dublin (III) Regulations, which as both the Statement and the reply to Lord Stoddart's question explain have to do with asylum seekers who make multiple applications in different EU member states.

Originally the UK had an opt-out but that has now been given up and we have opted in.

On the common European asylum system (CEAS), the presidency said that the reception conditions directive was due to be approved under the Council’s legislative items; only technical questions remained on the Dublin (III) regulation; negotiations with the European Parliament continued on asylum procedures, and COREPER had agreed the EURODAC package. The UK has opted in to the Dublin (III) regulation and the new EURODAC proposal. The UK has not opted in to the three other directives on reception conditions, asylum procedures and qualifications.

That was part of Mrs May's Statement. Lord Taylor of Holbeach's minions responded to Lord Stoddart:

The Dublin (III) and EURODAC (II) Regulations will between them govern the continued operation of the Dublin system by which member states determine who is responsible for dealing with an asylum claim. The Government are committed to the Dublin system, as it helps tackle the problem of people abusing asylum systems across Europe by making multiple claims in different EU member states. Since 2004 the Dublin system has enabled the UK to remove over 10,000 asylum applicants. This has resulted in significant financial savings and has also sent a powerful message that the UK can and will act against those who try to abuse our asylum system.

The Government will continue to consider the application of the UK's right to opt in to forthcoming EU legislation in the area of justice and home affairs on a case-by-case basis, with a view to maximising our country's security, protecting Britain's civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration.

The point I should like to make here is that far from challenging various "European" bodies and authorities, far from seeking to repatriate power, far from giving Parliament more control, HMG continues to opt into various agreements to do with Justice and Home Affairs without bothering to make much of a song and dance about it. All in the name of " maximising our country's security, protecting Britain's civil liberties and enhancing our ability to control immigration". Of course.

Is that a for or against?

I am aware that this blog has not pronounced on yesterday's debate and vote in the Lower House but that will have to wait until I get hold of a copy of Hansard that I can scribble nasty comments on. In the meantime, let us turn our attention to the Upper House.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked a written question.

To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their assessment of the plan outlined by the German Finance Minister on 16 October to create a European Union commissioner for economic and currency affairs with the power to regulate national budgets.

The answer, given by Lord Sassoon's minions is worth pondering over:

There have been no formal proposals for a European Union (EU) commissioner for economic and currency affairs with the power to regulate national budgets. Were a proposal to create a EU commissioner put forward, the Government would need to make a careful assessment, taking into account the national interest of the UK.

Is that HMG being in favour of such a position or against?

Good question

Though, I must admit, the answer is perfunctory.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon (a favourite personality on this blog) asked HMG

whether the policy advocated by the Prime Minister in his speech on 25 June that recipients of welfare benefits should be described as claimants and not customers will be applied to the National Health Service and HM Revenue and Customs, and users described as patients and taxpayers respectively.

Words matter, you see.

No, you can't renounce EU citizenship

Well,  you can, but you then have to renounce your UK citizenship as well though, perhaps, one can then revert to being a British subject of HM Queen. After all, most of us would prefer that, anyway.

How do I know this? Because HMG has so replied to Lord Stoddart's Written Question:

what is the process by which British subjects may renounce their European Union citizenship.

The reply should be of some interest to those who think that reforming the EU or changing our "relationship" with it (a non-existent concept) are possibilities.

Under the Maastricht Treaty, every citizen who is a national of a member state is also a citizen of the Union. The UK has defined its "nationals" for European Economic Area (EEA) purposes as:

British citizens;

British overseas territories citizens who derive their citizenship from a Gibraltar connection and;British subjects under Part IV of the British Nationality Act 1981 having the right of abode under s.2 of the Immigration Act 1971.

A UK national as defined above who renounced that status and did not have the nationality of another member state would cease to be a European citizen. It is not possible, however, to renounce European citizenship while remaining a UK national.

And who signed that infamous treaty? Which party was in government then, for they cannot be said to be in power any more?

You mean we are not

Lord Stoddart of Swindon asked a very reasonable question:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in the light of the numbers of British troops fighting in Afghanistan, they are directly involved in peace talks between the Taliban, the United States and the Government of Afghanistan; and, if not, why not.

Lord Howell's minions in the FCO replied on behalf of HMG:

The UK has always supported an Afghan-led political process to help bring peace and stability to Afghanistan. At the start of the year, the Taliban issued a statement expressing a willingness to participate in a political office in Qatar. President Karzai recently publicly endorsed the idea of an office in Qatar. We are supporting the Government of Afghanistan in its efforts to take this process forward.

I take it the answer is no, we are not and have no real way of making sure that we have any say in the matter. Why not, exactly?

Useful arguments

What am I to say to people who tell me that we need to be in the EU for our economic welfare or, at least, in a greatly reformed EU? This question keeps coming up and it is important. We have not managed to get our message across as successfully as we ought to have done so arguments that we can use against the other side are important.

Here are some in a letter to the Grauniad, signed by many of the usual suspects (though they are not, thankfully, calling for that referendum).

1. We have 3m jobs exporting to the EU but it has 4.5m jobs exporting to us. We are its largest client. 2. The EU has free-trade agreements with 63 countries worldwide and another 63 on the way, so why not with us, on satisfactory terms? 3. Switzerland, not in the EU, exports three times more per capita to the EU than we do. 4. Only 9% of our GDP goes in trade with the EU (in deficit), 11% goes to the rest of the world (in surplus), and 80% stays in our domestic market. Yet Brussels overregulation strangles all 100% of our economy, and handicaps our exports to the countries of the future. Leaving the EU would create jobs, and restore our democracy.

While I have some reservations about the last sentence (leaving the EU will not automatically do either of those things), the four cardinal points made in the letter are not only true but are also useful arguments. Mind you, when one produces them, one still has to deal with the dubious facial expression and a muttered "yes, of course, but even so" from a lot of people.