Why the Rees-Mogg line about how we were ‘ruled by Brussels’ was always a complete myth - The European Energy Taxation Directive and ‘Platinum Plating’ Writing in the Daily Telegraph last week, Jacob Rees-Mogg spoke about the ‘nearly 4,000 laws passed by the European Union’ which ‘remain on the statute book’. He said:
Also what seems to be rarely mentioned, that much 'EU law' was implementing international standards promulgated by treaty organisations to which the UK is still party. Dr Richard North has written about this several times and Christopher Booker wrote a significant piece in his Sunday Telegraph column in January 2013 "Forget Brussels: now we are ruled by the giants of Geneva"
To be fair, this legislative process only applies to EU Directives. EU Regulations and ECJ Decisions apply to member states automatically, as Rees-Mogg describes, though the vast majority of EU Regulations are not new laws at all, just technical adjustments to trade rules and such like. However what Rees-Mogg appears to be counting are Acts and Statutory Instruments that Parliament has passed as a result of EU Directives.
Some things are best left alone, and this is such a case. Attempting to properly unravel 47 years of EU legislation might take another 47 years but removing everything without thought would certainly be damaging. Much of what we automatically inherited from EU regulations will cease to apply anyway now we've left and where it does apply it's probably useful. UK Acts of Parliament, however originated, should never be repealed at the whim of ministers or by a sunset clause. Whether he's lying, stupid or both, Rees-Mogg is not to be trusted because he is driven by self interest.
It just shows how sneaky the UK Governments pass laws.
Like this new law that aims to circumvent parliament altogether.
And some of the international juridical system overriding laws in the upcoming books.
NEVER EVER trust this kind of unreliable legislature. ! !
Forget about rejoining the EU or even cozying up to the EFTA because it takes two to tango. Since all members and associate members of those organizations have to agree on something like that it will take a single vote to prevent it. And the present -and past- stances of the UK did not make it easier to welcome a treacherous government that can bite back later.
I think another example for platinum plating or hiding national policy agenda in translations of EU directives is the topic of using metric units in retail labeling.
The respective EU law requires that metric units be present on all labels, e.g. weight in grams/kilograms, and the UK translation added the requirement to only have those.
Or full on privatisation of rail instead of the approach chosen by most (all?) other EU members.
If the timeline suggested for this "review" of EU derived legislation wasn't so short, it could at least be used to identify all instances of unnecessary gold/platinum plating.
But I guess neither Conservatives nor Labour would want that, given they both made use of this facility to push through national policy changes with no or minimal parliamentary scrutiny.
Whenever I read about Rees Mogg I'm reminded of the old fishermans tale...(re the BIG catch)
"Are all the fisher men liars or is it all the liars that fish.."
Also what seems to be rarely mentioned, that much 'EU law' was implementing international standards promulgated by treaty organisations to which the UK is still party. Dr Richard North has written about this several times and Christopher Booker wrote a significant piece in his Sunday Telegraph column in January 2013 "Forget Brussels: now we are ruled by the giants of Geneva"
To be fair, this legislative process only applies to EU Directives. EU Regulations and ECJ Decisions apply to member states automatically, as Rees-Mogg describes, though the vast majority of EU Regulations are not new laws at all, just technical adjustments to trade rules and such like. However what Rees-Mogg appears to be counting are Acts and Statutory Instruments that Parliament has passed as a result of EU Directives.
Some things are best left alone, and this is such a case. Attempting to properly unravel 47 years of EU legislation might take another 47 years but removing everything without thought would certainly be damaging. Much of what we automatically inherited from EU regulations will cease to apply anyway now we've left and where it does apply it's probably useful. UK Acts of Parliament, however originated, should never be repealed at the whim of ministers or by a sunset clause. Whether he's lying, stupid or both, Rees-Mogg is not to be trusted because he is driven by self interest.
It just shows how sneaky the UK Governments pass laws.
Like this new law that aims to circumvent parliament altogether.
And some of the international juridical system overriding laws in the upcoming books.
NEVER EVER trust this kind of unreliable legislature. ! !
Forget about rejoining the EU or even cozying up to the EFTA because it takes two to tango. Since all members and associate members of those organizations have to agree on something like that it will take a single vote to prevent it. And the present -and past- stances of the UK did not make it easier to welcome a treacherous government that can bite back later.
JR-M said something that turned out to be unfathomable horseshit. He’s consistent, that’s all.
I think another example for platinum plating or hiding national policy agenda in translations of EU directives is the topic of using metric units in retail labeling.
The respective EU law requires that metric units be present on all labels, e.g. weight in grams/kilograms, and the UK translation added the requirement to only have those.
Or full on privatisation of rail instead of the approach chosen by most (all?) other EU members.
If the timeline suggested for this "review" of EU derived legislation wasn't so short, it could at least be used to identify all instances of unnecessary gold/platinum plating.
But I guess neither Conservatives nor Labour would want that, given they both made use of this facility to push through national policy changes with no or minimal parliamentary scrutiny.