The story behind Euro MPs' expenses
A reply to a few points.
I am not going to get further involved in the "What's in a name?" dispute as most of your comments illustrate nicely the passions involved.
Just one quibble over a re-naming: Max Sceptic had a much nobler ring than "ScepticMax" which sounds cartooonish. Maybe it's the perils of registration.
I want to answer StuartC at some length: partly because I am keen to refute any suggestion of the BBC being nobbled.
But also because I think it is important to cast light on the nuts and bolts of editorial decision-making from time to time.
The BBC is more streamlined than ever before, with one newsroom under the rubric "BBC News" but decision-making is not, thank goodness, monolithic. Different editors see things differently and thank goodness for that.
I remember once when I was Newsnight's man at Westminster. I was concerned that my line was completely at odds with the interpretation of the then political editor on the main bulletins.
Michael Crick, now Newsnight's political editor and then a reporter, argued that we would be horrified if all the Murdoch titles had exactly the same take: BBC news should be a plurality too.
It's a thought that has long stuck with me. Obviously you don't want correspondents arguing the toss on air but you've got to allow a certain degree of latitude and we get it.
MEPs lead the Ten
Anyway I've long wanted to do something on MEPs' expenses and the TV Ten wanted it for broadcast this Tuesday. The plan was for a broad piece, not only on the audit on office expenses, but the monthly move to Strasbourg, and rows about pensions and travelling expenses.
In order to see this content you need to have both Javascript enabled and Flash installed. Visit BBC Webwise for full instructions.
A series of votes turned it into a good news story. MEPs voted to both cover up the auditors' report and to ban family members from working for MEPs.
It is a fine judgement, which is the better top line: family members or stopping the report. I personally think the latter is the more interesting story because it is part of a bigger picture.
But it had been trailed, whereas the family members ban was new, to me at any rate, and casts an interesting light on the debate about the same thing at Westminster.
Certainly, within the Parliament, most MEPs would have seen the restriction as bigger news. I don't think that was true for most British MEPs or the British public.
But, as I say, it is a very close call. Both lines should be in any story and, from the BBC's point of view, whether one is more positive or negative for the reputation of MEPs is neither here nor there.
So we had already decided this was the top line when there was a message to call the editor urgently. It had been a difficult edit, speeding up all those pictures of travel and fitting graphics to them. "If they drop this I'll blow my lid," I hissed at my cameraman editor, the ever-patient and generally wonderful Xav.
But the call was quite the reverse: "Is it a lead?" I didn't think it was an obvious lead, no, but I'm always happy to oblige. The editor explained the alternatives were a preview of the American elections or the latest twist on mortgages. This felt fresher.
Good, but I would have to give it a harder edge if it was to be the top story, mainly by bringing the news-point in at the beginning, and dropping most of the argument about Strasbourg.
So that's what we did. The Ten promised a Live from me from Strasbourg but none appeared. Again not the result of a frenetic call from mythical pro European forces.
No, an engineer in Paris (not a BBC one) mistyped a 15-minute booking as a 5-minute one.
So I think TV looked and felt different because of a bold and imaginative call by the editor. He was right, but those who took a more conventional approach weren't wrong.
Normally I would have filed an item for this blog but, because of the re-edit and the planned Live, I wouldn't have got around to it until midnight and I had a six-thirty flight. Even my dedication to my readers has its limits.
As for the map story: it is so old it has got, not just whiskers, but a full beard down to its waist. I have a whole book based on this regional map. I seem to remember I read it about a year-and-a-half ago. Goodness knows when it first surfaced. Whatever news is, it isn't something that's at least three years old.
I’m Mark Mardell, the BBC's North America editor. These are my reflections on American politics, some thoughts on being a Brit living in the USA, and who knows what else? My 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~32~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Occam's razor. Attributing to massive cover-up, influencing, corruption, etc... when it's often just people doing their jobs with the occasional mistake as we all make.
The ban on family members is, as you said, interesting to MEP's but not really to the rest of us. Most places already have some sort of policy regarding the hiring of family members so while it might be mildly shocking that MEP's used to be able to do this it's not as outrageous as their overall expenses.
The problem is that the BBC and any legitimate news organisation exists to report the news, not to lead rallies against injustices. The expenses are outrageous but unless something has changed then it isn't putting the new into news.
A lot of people, and I believe, particularly in the UK feel quite disconnected from the EU. They want it to change or for the political parts, especially those bits responsible for the perception of diminished national/local powers, to go away. It's not as if hardly anyone knows who to talk to or complain to though, so a lot of people do turn to the only people they know who know anyone in the EU - our news organisations. So many people's desire to see certain stories ran - and to claim some form of corruption when they don't - are understandable.
Complain about this comment
All very interesting but if ever a local council or government department defended a decision by saying well this division talked to that division and then another division rang up and yet another one made a typing error - well, we'd all tell them to stop being bureacratic penpushers. In short, it was cock-up and not conspiracy and that's all that counts.
Complain about this comment
Dear Mark, thanks for the name-check - I am flattered, as evr. I am somewhat confused, however, as I'm pretty certain that my online moniker has always been ScepticMax rather than Max Sceptic. But, as you say in you're opening paragraph, 'What's in a name?'....
Nobility is a desirable quality that I would dearly wish to be associated with, but it is no guarantee of good sense. As Dear Oscar observed: "Whenever a man does a thoroughly stupid thing, it is always from the noblest motives". Cartoon characters, on the other hand, can be profound. Can anyone compete with Homer Simpson's acute social observations, or the oratory eloquence of Fred Flintstone's "Yaba-Daba-Doo!"?
Thanks also for posts such as this one which explain your working methods, the way stories develop and the editorial decisions (and technical opportunities and limitations) that shape the programmes and reports we viewers/listeners/readers receive. The 'blog' format seems especially suited for this type of immediate and intimate (in the sense of personally engaging) interaction between news reporters and their audiences.
As for the MEP, although elected, most of the UK bunch are second tier / second-class politicos (The fact that Nick Clegg was an MEP is a good example). I just pray daily that they are not given any further real powers over our national parliament.
Complain about this comment
Now why should anyone be surprised that the European Union of Soviet Socialist Republics with its secretive unaccountable unelected (by the population at large) members is corrupt? The junkets, nepotism, and fraud are probably just the tip of the iceberg. Their books haven't been certified by accountants for over a decade. If they were made public, how many contracts would we see where there had been sweetheart deals made with their friends? And if there was a thorough investigation, how many would have large bank accounts with large sums of money they couldn't explain? By being the government, they can hide everything they are doing....including scheming to usurp even more power in the future. Why should human nature be any different in Europe than anywhere else? Does anyone think left to absolute power, they would not be absolutely corrupt? The difference between the EU MPs and convicted felons is that there are no police for them to worry about.
Complain about this comment
The EU represents a fundamentally difficult challenge for reporters because (unlike Westminster) there is no official opposition to provide alternative perspectives, or indeed democratic mechanisms to align the views of Brussels insiders with those of the peoples they govern. Given the deep disconnect between political elites and the peoples of Europe, the blog may be the only format that allows the views of elites to be balanced by comments from an otherwise voiceless public.
It may or may not be the case that there is institutional pro-EU bias at the BBC, but it is self-defeating for EU-sceptics to go on about it here. Any half-decent EU-sceptic should regard reports such as “Barroso squares up to Berlusconi” as the political equivalent of someone serving underarm to Roger Federer. Rather than complain about BBC bias, or tripping up over tabloid tales, simply smash the return that the real “slap in the face of democracy” occurs because Brussels feels it has a right to overrule our democratically elected national governments. There is so much that is wrong with the EU that there is scarcely any need to be distracted by anything but the obvious.
BBC TV reports are of course a different matter because no feedback is possible. I have to admit that when I watched this latest News at Ten report on MEP expenses my first thought was “that’s not as biased as usual”. I also agree the story had a “fresher” feel about it, so well done to all concerned.
Complain about this comment
Hi Mark,
Thanks for responding to my comment - surprised and impressed.
A great insight into how the TV piece was put together. I liked the piece, which is why I was so surprised to see not a peep about the leading 'expenses' side of it the following day on the BBC website.
That's a point you didn't really cover, apart from the nod to 'plurality'. Which is fine in principle, but remains odd when an entire quite negative side of an EU story is omitted.
And actually I'm not sure the comparison of the BBC's various news outlets and how different newspaper brands cover stories really stands.
Of course, such incidents cannot be judged in isolation. But unfortunately that outlook doesn't work in the BBC's favour.
To give another recent example; the BBC online story on 15 April about an Irish MEP being 'assaulted' by an anti-EU gang has been proven by camera footage of the incident to be a hoax - showing the guy fell over all by himself.
Yet, despite complaints, the story of people "screaming abuse" and "knocking him over" remains on the BBC website - nevermind retracted with equal prominence to the original story.
This is particularly serious, given the current debate and looming referendum in Ireland.
Sadly, another EU-related BBC online choice that it's hard to explain in a charitable way.
best wishes,
-Stuart-
Complain about this comment
A couple of the early postings refer to the "EU power over national parliaments". My reading of the Lisbon Treaty is that this includes allowing national parliaments more, not less power over the working of the EU.
The Treaty document is long and boring, so I may have misread this: am I right or wrong, please Mark?
By the way, I do read other European blogs - one needs to have a balanced view. If the EU-sceptics want a blog more to their liking they only have to go looking on the web. I happen to like the generally balanced view that Mark presents.
Complain about this comment
frenchderek: Yes - you have misread it. The much talked about increased powers for national parliaments are merely 2 weeks longer to uselessly scrutinize (and not to block or amend) proposed EU legislation from the Commission. The only ground for complaint is related to subsidiarity and there is no obligation on the Commission to withdraw its proposal. It will remain the case that no vote in any national parliaments will be able to block an EU law from becoming binding law in that parliament’s country, or for the EU law to be changed in future no matter how that country votes in subsequent elections.
Since the Lisbon Treaty transfers decision-making powers in more areas to Brussels it is certainly the case that national parliaments will have less power to decide the law we live under in future.
Complain about this comment
Freeborn-John #5
It's not a question of not having an official opposition, it's a question of not having a watchdog, especially one that can no only bark but has teeth. Instead, the foxes are in charge of the chicken house. Now what do you suppose happened to all those chickens?
Complain about this comment
Welcome to the EU or should i say the soviet union of Europe forced on its people by lies and deceet.Democracy is dead and buried.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Unfortunately the British people have been lied to so much that I am not prepared to accept Mark Mardell's assurance that the BBC is not biased.
That is not the same as claiming that he is lying.
Stories appear in the Austrian media which are unflattering about our "EU"-partners and which ought to be headline news in the UK but either do not get a mention or are "hidden" away.
The British people are not "Eurosceptic" because they have too much anti-"EU" news. We are still in the "EU" because they do not realise the full horror of it.
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2
You're so right, the British people have been lied to over and over again, for years on end.
The Sun, the Mail, the Express and the Telegraph have been lying and lying to millions of Britons for years, making up stories about "loony Eurocrats" breaking up Britain (the famous map), banning beer and silencing church bells. Most of all, they lie about the undemocratic nature of decisions that are taken by democratically-elected governments in the Council of Ministers and democratically-elected MEPs.
And with so many lies, the British people are understandably eurosceptic. What would happen if they ever heard the truth?
Complain about this comment
SuffolkBoy2 in post 12 wrote:
"The British people are not "Eurosceptic" because they have too much anti-"EU" news. We are still in the "EU" because they do not realise the full horror of it".
In fact, the British people, many of whom do completely realise the full horror of the EU, are still in it because no mainstream political party in the UK has seen fit to give them an opportunity to have a say on continued membership. The disgraceful refusal of Gordon Brown to honour his party's maifesto pledge to grant a referendum before ratification of the Lisbon Treaty (what after all is in a name?), is just the latest manifestation of the slow death of democracy in the UK, even it is is easily the most blatant. I cannot be the only person who is mystified by the willingness of British parliamentarians to sign their own death warrant by continuing to transfer power to Brussels, but one thing is for sure: history clearly shows that no people will be subjugated for ever. Ignore their legitimate political aspirations for long enough and they will find an outlet other than the ballot box. The constant refrain of the pro-EU lobby is that anyone opposed to the "project" is a political extremist, but they are the ones driving moderate voters into the arms of the extreme parties by their refusal to abide by democracy - ie give the people a vote. Whatever can they be afraid of?
Complain about this comment
Having been absent form this blog for some weeks I find that on my return nothing much has changed. Another shock-horror story from the Evil Empire, in this case two old reliables, the mis-deeds of MEPs and the wasteful duplication of the facilities of the European Parliament in Brussels and Strasbourg.
I can be brief in my comments as I agree fully with #1 Brad Zimmerman. (Incidentally, could a link to Wikipedia for 'Occam's razor' be inserted?).
That parliamentarians attempt to enrich themselves is not unique to the European Parliament. We are all agreed, however, that this should not be on the basis of dishonest actions. The facts emerging recently about the expenses of the members of the 'Mother of Parliaments' are not exactly edifying.
As to the position with regard to Strasbourg, could not some attempt be made to set the issue of the dual-seat in its proper historical context; the sensitivities attaching to the siting of a major European institution in the capital of a region disputed between France and Germany for centuries (and the source of not two but three major conflicts)?.
What is remarkable about the European Union is not that it stumbles along but that it works at all. The United Kingdom has taken no risks for Europe since it was (eventually) permitted to join by the original Six. Its stance is understandable but hardly glorious.
Could attention not be turned to what the European Union is attempting to do, with or without the participation of the UK? There is no shortage of topics. (In every instance, incidentally, whether it is in relation to the euro or the area of freedom, security and justice, UK negotiators have ensured that the UK is in the room, even if not participating, the only exception being the Eurogroup which, even under the Lisbon Treaty, must - on UK insistence - continue to meet 'informally' cf. Article 1 of the Protocol on the Euro Group).
Complain about this comment
MarcusAureliusII (9): I’m not suggesting the BBC is without fault; just that EU-sceptics should aim their shots at the heart of the problems with the EU system itself.
Denis O’Leary (15): You point out the EU is attempting to do many things for which it has no democratic mandate in Britain or many other countries. You suggest that British politicians should take risks to support the EU even when they know it has lost the trust of the British people, but they have already taken too many risks for the EU and deserve to face the consequences in elections this week and in 2009/10. The Labour government said one thing to get elected in 2005 regarding the EU Constitution and then marched their MPs through the Westminster lobby to vote directly against those manifesto commitments. That is not likely to bother someone like yourself who has previously described the preferences of the elected governments of Europe (i.e. the policies which they put before their people and upon which they ran for office) as "contamination" of the pure workings of Brussels, but it is an affront to the principles of representative government and should not be tolerated by voters.
You suggest the BBC should devote more attention to what the EU (which Elmar Brok MEP has described as "a state under construction") is trying to do. In this point alone I can agree with you because the Monet-method ("integration by stealth") towards a super-state has always depended upon obscurity which the media should shine a light upon. The BBC could for example be asking why the EU Commission uses its monopoly on legislative initiative as part of a relentless campaign to transfer more powers to EU institutions with real-world problem-solving being (at best) an accidental by-product of its primary mission. Or what the long-term consequences to our democracy will be of steadily replacing the law of our democratic national political institutions with an ever-expanding body of superior EU law that is beyond the reach of our votes. Journalists who focus on the minutia of daily EU events are missing the bigger picture.
Complain about this comment
@frenchderek (7)
obviously you have misread the socalled Lisbon treaty. It does not grant more power to national parliaments, in fact it renders them well near obsolete.
Already last year, former German president Herzog estimated 84% of legislation in Germany came either directly or indirectly from Brussels. He asked whether he could still call Germany a parliamentary democracy (the answer of course is, no it isn't and neither is any other EU country because the parliaments don't really make the laws anymore).
The percentage he mentioned has meanwhile increased to well near 90% and there is no sign of stopping it. The Lisbon Treaty transfers more policy areas as competences to the EU (there has never been a power transfer away from Brussels). Therefore the national parliaments will have even less to say after the implementation (heaven forbid) of the Lisbon Treaty.
I call the Lisbon Treaty a direct attack on what remains of parliamentary democracy in the EU countries. The legislative powers now effectively (de facto) reside with unelected Commission and with the unelected Council (most government ministers are not elected across the EU countries). National ministers need not bother anymore with their own national parliaments, as they can bypass national parliaments by going through the Council in Brussels. The Commission/Council combo can therefore legislate (initiative: Commission) and effectively wield executive (initiative: Council) powers.
This is a blatant violation of the separation of powers and a hammer blow against democracy as parliaments have now been rendered effectively useless as there exists no parliament that can block EU legislation.
Why, Mark, has the BBC or any other media never seriously reported on this? Our democracies are being dismantled in the name of 'Europe'. Why o why is the media not doing its job informing people about this?
Complain about this comment
I see that #16 Freeborn-John has dredged up a reference I made some considerable time back to the wish of the European Parliament not to see the "Community Method" element of the Union "contaminated" by the inter-governmental workings of the Common Foreign and Security Policy.
As to the Community Method, the Commission has only a right of proposal, it is the Council (made up of democratically appointed Ministers, including those from the UK) acting usually in co-decision with the European Parliament (made up of directly elected MEPs) that decides. This is an element of the system of checks and balances, essential to any democratic process, that has made the Union the success that it is.
How often does the point have to be repeated?
As to the shibboleth of the Union being responsible for most national legislation, admittedly given credence by former German President Herzog, have the proponents of this thesis had regard to the fact that Germany is a federal state with the laender being responsible for most areas of legislation e.g. in the area of health, education, justice etc. ? Was the former German President referring to the limited legislative remit of the federal legislature? I do not know.
What I do know is that the Union budget accounts for 2% of total government spending in the European Union and it it incredible to imagine that this expenditure could be matched by almost all national implementing legislation.
The Union is never, repeat never, going to pick up the bills for health, education, social welfare, defence etc which account for the 98% of national spending not accounted for by it.
Only in the limited areas in which they have voluntarily agreed to share sovereignty will the Member States have to implement Union legislation.
Gordon Brown is struggling with domestic issues, as are his counterparts in all 27 Member States. He is not beating off some mythical monster from Brussels come to devour the United Kingdom.
Complain about this comment
Denis O'Leary: You can repeat weak points as often as you wish but it does not give them credence. The fact remains that none of the three main EU institutions can claim a democratic legitimacy.
The Commission does not just have "a" right to make legislative proposals. It has THE MONOPOLY on legislative proposals for law superior to any other for 500 million people. No change to EU law can be made without a Commission proposal and the Commission has never once in its 50 year history proposed anything that does not lead to an expansion of EU power. This monopoly on legislative proposals (which is morally indefensible for any unelected body to hold and which has no analogy in any parliamentary or presidential democracy in the world) is a key part of the one-way ratchet to a super-state. How can it be democratic that no-one we elect can propose change to law superior to any other?
The Council of Ministers is composed of national cabinet ministers, each of which has a democratic mandate to govern in their own country; but nowhere else. German ministers for example have a democratic legitimacy to govern the German people who comprise their electorate; but not me. Yet the Council of Ministers acting collectively and deciding by qualified majority can agree EU law binding on entire nations against the will of that people's elected government. And once decided this EU law cannot be changed in future by that people no matter how they vote in any future elections. That is not democracy.
The EU parliament is elected but not by a united people who regard themselves as a single polity that agree to bound by its majority decisions. The EU Parliament has recently voted 499 to 129 not to respect the verdict of the upcoming Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, should the result not be to their liking. Do you think that vote in the EU Parliament has any democratic legitimacy in Ireland? If that vote of the EU Parliament has no democratic legitimacy why would any other?
The EU is no more a success than is Chinese rule in Tibet. It could not win a referendum to legitimise the powers its hold over us in many of its member-states. Opinion polls show that all four of the treaties of European Union ratified since 1992 would have been rejected by the British people if any had been put to referendum. The entire political construct in Brussels is illegitimate. Its law most certainly does prevent the current British government (and others) acting in ways they want, as for example Gordon Brown has discovered when wanting to lower VAT on environmentally-friendly products. Your point that EU spending only accounts for 2% of government spending is also meaningless; the US federal government spent a similar figure before WW2.
Complain about this comment
I have just checked on the web the current UK legislative programme. It contains 32 items. Of these only two have a recognizable direct connection to the EU, one being the Bill in relation to the Lisbon Treaty.
A check in any other Member State would give the same result.
Complain about this comment
DenisOLeary @ 20
Hard to know where to begin with your comment.
First, you seem not to be aware that the vast bulk of the EU's legislative output is either directly applicable (without the need for UK legislation) or enacted in the form of Secondary Legislation such as Statutory Instruments.
So your cursory glance at current Bills before Parliament is very far from sufficient to judge the EU's impact on law-making.
The two Bills listed are ratifications of treaty changes - one for Lisbon, the other amending how we finance the EU to take account of Tony Blair unjustifiably giving up a third of our rebate.
Second, your assertion about other countries (the sweeping nature of which speaks volumes in itself) has already been shown to be wrong thanks to an official answer from the German government.
A couple of years ago the CSU member of parliament Johannes Singhammer asked the German government how many legal provisions impacting on the Federal Republic had been passed on the European and on the national level.
The Ministry of Justice answer revealed that between 1998 and 2004 more than 80% of all new legislation in Germany had its origins in EU legislation (18,167 EU Regulations and 750 EU Directives out of a total of 23,167 laws passed).
This was revealed by the German pro-democracy group Democracy International and is on their website for anyone who wishes to see the details.
That's not to suggest that exactly the same percentage applies here. Our own government refuses to reveal the UK percentage.
So contrary to your assertions I think it's safe to conclude from both these pointers that the EU's impact on our laws is very significant indeed.
Complain about this comment
Replying to #21, Stuart C, I have never denied the normative impact of EU legislation at a national level. There are, or were, for example, many hundreds of day-to-day regulations in relation to agriculture in the period mentioned in the German statistics as this is a policy which was, until the introduction of the single farm payment at least, largely managed at a European level. By their very nature, these require no repeat no legislative action nationally as they are, in the jargon, directly applicable.
My point is a simple one. The bulk of any substantive legislation passed at a national level has its origins in domestic law. There are vast areas of competence which the Member States have simply not transferred to the European Union.
EU "legal provisions impacting on the Federal Government" are a different matter.
My statement is, therefore, not a sweeping one but a confident prediction because, unless some Member States have been transferring competences without anybody else knowing about it, the same considerations must apply.
The only possible exception (and I am unclear on this point) would be Germany because of its federal structure.
The attitude of the CSU, incidentally, to the perceived interference of the Union is well documented. For a recent reference, please read the contribution of the Prime Minister of Bavaria to the Bundestag debate on ratification of the Lisbon Treaty.
Complain about this comment
DenisOLeary @ 22
18,167 EU regulations in that period, to be precise. If "many hundreds" were related to that farming policy, as you say, what do you imagine were the remaining thousands related to? Or the 750 directives?
I also notice you've altered your stance slightly to refer to the proportion of 'substantive' legislation, rather than of all legislation. I suppose that's where we could descend into a war of definitions about what's substantive or not.
Without getting into such nit-picking, I find it hard to accept that if the German government says that 80% of its laws have their origins in EU legislation, then the UK's figure isn't also pretty substantial.
A lesser proportion than 80% due, as you highlight, to Germany's federal structure. But very likely still a substantial proportion of UK legislation having its origins in the EU. Shame our government refuses to tell us.
More generally, while it's true that EU member governments still retain several substantive policy areas under exclusive national control (viz. the ever-decreasing 'red lines' the government trots out when going into EU treaty renegotiations) the EU enjoys 'shared competence' over a very wide range of policy areas.
The list includes vague policy titles like social policy, agriculture, fisheries, environment, transport, consumer protection and 'cohesion'.
Look no further than the EU's own website, under 'Activities' on the front page, to see just how many policy areas the EU has a finger in to some (usually growing) degree.
This 'shared competence' set-up can sometimes give the impression that competence has not been transferred, because elected governments are still also permitted to legislate.
However the key is that the legislation of national governments must not conflict with the EU's own. The effect of which, over time and growth of EU legislative action, closes down national governments' room for manoeuvre in these 'shared' policy areas too. Effectively, ultimately, leaving the EU in charge.
I guess this whole debate rests on the definition of when a competence becomes 'transferred'.
Complain about this comment
Denis O'Learly: The UK Cabinet office has said (See ‘Improving UK handling of European legislation’, October 2002) that "around 50% of significant legislation enacted in the UK originates from the European Union" and that this figure "will rise".
http://www.moderniseringsprogram.dk/db/filarkiv/6344/IMPROVING_THE_WAY_THE_UK_HANDLES_EUROPEAN_LEGISLATION.doc
StuartC: Your posts are spot on. I might just add that the Lisbon treaty establishes "shared competence" as the default in future. The list of "shared" powers is actually open-ended with the list of areas subject to shared competence purely for illustration. Note the careful use of negative wording and that the use of the word “principal”.
ARTICLE 4
1. The Union shall share competence with the Member States where the Treaties confer on it a competence which does NOT relate to the areas referred to in Articles 3 [exclusive competence] and 6 [supporting areas].
2. Shared competence between the Union and the Member States applies in the following
PRINCIPLE areas:
(a) internal market;
(b) social policy, for the aspects defined in this Treaty;
Etc….
As you say the definition of "shared" means power is only shared in time. Once EU legislation is created in the so-called area of shared power the national parliament may no longer legislate.
ARTICLE 2.2: When the Treaties confer on the Union a competence shared with the Member States in a specific area, the Union and the Member States may legislate and adopt legally binding acts in that area. The Member States shall exercise their competence to the extent that the Union has NOT exercised its competence.
http://www.consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cmsUpload/st06655.en08.pdf
The inevitable and automatic consequence of such wording is that over time the legislative power of our national parliaments will be reduced to nothing, and along with it the power of our votes. This is Monnet’s one-way conveyer belt to a super-state as designed by his "Action Committee for a United States of Europe". Even if Denis O'Leary were correct to say that the conveyer belt is running slower than some claim it would only delay and not alter the destination.
Complain about this comment
My position remains unchanged. There is no trend towards a takeover of more national prerogatives by the EU - the opposite, in fact - and the clearest evidence of this is the balance between EU and national expenditure.
A mention was made of the fact that the US Federal Government used to account for only 2%. But this, it seems to me, makes my point.
The US federal government has become involved in larger and larger federal programmes such as Medicaid and Medicare and, of course, military expenditure. Not alone is the percentage falling in the EU, it has a formal legal cap of 1.4% of GNI as mentioned in the Own Resources decision which was one of the two items on the UK government's legislative programme. Not alone is a United States of Europe not on the cards, the Member States have ensured legally that this cannot come about, at least in budgetary terms.
As Stuart-C points out, the whole debate depends on the definition of when a competence is transferred. The list in the Lisbon Treaty could not be exclusive because it is impossible to define a precise separation. The EU (or rather the Community) can only implement a competence when the Member States agree freely to adopt legislation to enable a particular policy action encompassed by the competence to be implemented. They can "un-implement" whole areas of the competence if they want to, by rescinding legislation, and such action is presently being taken as part of the simplification process. This work is hugely advanced in relation to agriculture.
As the EU can adopt legislation binding the citizens of the Member States, it is clearly some form of federal entity. But this entity is unique because it is the Member States that are responsible for implementing the decisions of the "federation", not the federation itself. This is why the EU need employ only 40,000 people directly rather than the millions in the service of the US Federal Government.
The EU is unique and, despite all its faults, the most successful example of cooperation among democratic states in history. In debating the faults we should not, it seems to me, lose sight of this reality.
P.S I used the term "substantive" to differentiate between (i) EU legislation requiring legislative action nationally i.e. directives (of which, there were 750 over the period)and (ii) regulations which are directly applicable i.e. they become part of national law without the need for action by national governments other than, perhaps, a press notice. My reference to "hundreds" of agriculture regulations was to an annual figure i.e. the total over the period was probably the major element in the German figures. It is hard to know where else they could come from. Size of bottle tops, maybe?If anyone feels inclined to try and find out, please do so.
P.P.S. I am frankly surprised by the reported Cabinet Office statement. I have no explanation.
Complain about this comment
@DenisOLeary
seriously, are you some kind of propagandist for the Reich in Brussels?
What's this "is no trend towards a takeover of more national prerogatives by the EU" nonsense?
The trend is actually clear, with the Lisbon treaty (a direct attack on parliamentary democracy) it is now established that primary legislative powers over all but a few policy areas now reside in Brussels, and Brussels law is supreme (and of course, drawn up by the unelected and unaccountable EU-crowd).
Name one competence that has ever been transferred back to the member states once the undemocratic Commission got its hands onto it?
And as for this "it has a formal legal cap of 1.4% of GNI as mentioned in the Own Resources decision". You are not actually falling for that scam are you? The thing is, the EU has become a cancerous growth which has its cancerous tentacles so far up in control of many policy areas that it de facto controls much of domestic policies. The cunning bit is, the expenditure on these issues formally falls under the national governments, but in reality is controlled more or less by the undemocratic EU's legislative primacy.
Just imagine your own money, imagine I had control over what you could spend it on, but you retained your bank pass. Who would you say had de facto control over it, I who had formal say over what you can spend it on, or you who holds the bank pass? The anti democratic EU is full of these tricks to fool the people into a false sense of security. Same with parliaments, the EU lets them exist, but meanwhile undermines them and takes all powers away.
Complain about this comment
Denis O'Leary: It seems to me that you make a better fist of trying to defend the EU than the Labour or LibDem MPs who could do nothing better than chant "the constitutional concept has been abandoned" while marching zombie-like into the Westminster lobby to vote against their manifesto. Never-the-less every one of the claims that you have made on this BBC site, from your earlier claims that "the CAP does not cost anyone in Britain a penny" to these latest ones about the EU being democratic, not having a significant impact on national legislation, and there not being a trend towards the EU taking over national competences, are all easily proved to be false. I have already provided a link (in post #24) to the consolidate version of the Lisbon treaty which obviously transfers more powers to the EU. How can you deny this and even claim the opposite is happening? You can of course say that your position remains unchanged despite all evidence it is based on falsehoods, but to do so is to abandon any pretence of a rationale case and retreat into the realm of blind faith.
The EU institutions were designed by Monnet's "Action Committee for a United States of Europe" with a goal in mind. His plan involved two parts; (i) the creation of self-aggrandizing European institutions and (ii) an assumption that these institutions would automatically attract the loyalty of the peoples of Europe away from national institutions such that they would be accepted as legitimate. Only the first part of his plan has worked. There has been no "Europeanization" of the masses comparable to the "nationalisation" of Germans or Italians in the 19th century. What we are left with therefore is the nations of Europe rejecting as alien the artificial transplantation of EU political organs into their body politic.
The next steps must be for an incoming Conservative government to restore democratic governance in this country by reasserting the primacy of the national political institutions which we do accept as legitimate. There must be a fundamental re-negotiation of our relationship with the EU back to one of trade, or (if our partners prove unwilling to negotiate) we have to leave.
Complain about this comment
I think we have taken this debate as far as it will go. Just a few final comments but not to have the last word.
I was in error when I said that the UK has taken no risks for Europe. It did so in respect of membership of the ERM but Sterling probably entered at too high a rate. Equally, I was wrong when I said that no new prerogatives are being given to the European Union as this will clearly be the case with regard to the so-called Third Pillar issues relating to police and judicial cooperation. However, the UK has total freedom of action in this area because of her opt-outs which are, in fact, greatly increased even by reference to the Constitutional Treaty.
As to my earlier claim that the UK pays nothing to the cost of the CAP in budgetary terms - which I would also stand over - I would invite you to read the UK implementing legislation for the new Own Resources decision.
An additional irony is that, through clever negotiation by Schroeder, the other four largest Member States, i.e. apart from Germany, must pick up the tab for the cost of the UK rebate (which more than covers what would otherwise have been its contribution to the CAP). And , to add insult to injury, the rebate mechanism is in the OR decision itself i.e. it is part of the primary legislation of the EU and cannot be changed without UK consent. Incredible but true. And perhaps, for some, also reassuring.
There is, of course, the fact that the CAP probably keeps prices higher in the UK than the otherwise would be but no developed country, with the exception of New Zealand, has kept agriculture free of subsidy. Even outside the EU, the UK was unable to do so.
P.S. The reply - which I can see coming - that the UK is in any case paying too much will not stand up. Either there is a basis for Members' contributions or there is not. Any reduced entrance fee must be viewed as saving the Member money.
Complain about this comment
Fellow EU-sceptics, notice how EU-philes like mr O'Leary always fail to answer or even address questions on how the EU is destroying parliamentary democracy.
Mr O'Leary, why is there no democratic control or parliamentary scrutiny possible on Commission/Council legislation? Does that not in effect mean that parliamentary democracy has ceased to exist? Does it not mean that Commission/Council can overrule national parliaments?
Of course, anyone who knows the history of the EU and Jean Monnet, knows that this has been the plan right from the first time Monnet and others formulated their first ideas for what is now the EU. Monnet, in the 1920s already formulated the key element in his plans: no democracy, the legislative powers must reside with politicians who cannot be held accountable.
And now, we have it the way Monnet wanted it. Monnet, never elected to anything, was (this is clear from the mans own writings) not a fan of democracy.
Complain about this comment
Good news from the High Court.
Complain about this comment
DenisOLeary @ 25
Forgive me, but I have to admit to finding your comments more and more surreal.
You said: "There is no trend towards a takeover of more national prerogatives by the EU - the opposite, in fact."
So what powers does the EU Constitution / Lisbon Treaty pass back from the EU to member states?
Quite the contrary, it seems to me. It advances the transfer of decision-making from elected governments to the remote EU centre in a range of policy areas.
That's actually the treaty's entire purpose - such treaties have no other.
There is surely no debate that the EU is doing today more than it has ever done before.
And you also say ... "the clearest evidence of this is the balance between EU and national expenditure."
You don't mention the difference in EU GNI between this EU Financial Perspectives agreement and the last, which I would imagine makes small percentage changes actually equate to significant real terms changes - indeed, increases - in the EU's budget.
As you seem very well informed, I'm sure you'll know that Britain alone just recently agreed to increase our contribution to the EU budget by 63% (not my figure but Tony Blair's) including giving up a third (£1bn a year) of our rebate.
So it is not us, at least, feeling any great reduction in the EU's budget.
So I'm afraid I remain perplexed about where your ideas are coming from.
Complain about this comment
Let perplexity cease. We can give the last word to HM Government at http://services.parliament.UK/bills/2007-08/europeancommunitiesfinance.html
Complain about this comment
I think it was an interesting story behind the expenses of the M.E.P.'s....
~Dennis Junior
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS