This is Bound to End in Tears

[french frank]

This is not such good news though? See Page 3
https://consult.defra.gov.uk/waste-a...ocument%20.pdf

Les orgues à tuyaux définitivement exclus du champ d’application de la directive RoHS

Suite à la proposition de la Commission du 26 janvier 2017 qui avait considéré que les tuyaux d'orgues étaient fabriqués dans un alliage de plomb d'un type particulier, pour lequel il n’existe aucun matériau de substitution à ce jour, le Parlement européen et le Conseil de l'Union européenne, via la DIRECTIVE (UE) 2017/2102 du 15 novembre 2017, ont (enfin) exclu les orgues à tuyaux du champ d’application de la Directive 2011/65/EU relative à la limitation de l’utilisation de certaines substances dangereuses dans les équipements électriques et électroniques (2e directive RoHS).

https://www.ameublement.com/fr/article/les-orgues-tuyaux-definitivement-exclus-du-champ-dapplication-de-la-directive-rohs

It just needs someone to translate it for the government.

[Bryn]

Les orgues à tuyaux définitivement exclus du champ d’application de la directive RoHS

Suite à la proposition de la Commission du 26 janvier 2017 qui avait considéré que les tuyaux d'orgues étaient fabriqués dans un alliage de plomb d'un type particulier, pour lequel il n’existe aucun matériau de substitution à ce jour, le Parlement européen et le Conseil de l'Union européenne, via la DIRECTIVE (UE) 2017/2102 du 15 novembre 2017, ont (enfin) exclu les orgues à tuyaux du champ d’application de la Directive 2011/65/EU relative à la limitation de l’utilisation de certaines substances dangereuses dans les équipements électriques et électroniques (2e directive RoHS).

https://www.ameublement.com/fr/article/les-orgues-tuyaux-definitivement-exclus-du-champ-dapplication-de-la-directive-rohs

It just needs someone to translate it for the government.

However, is the pdf linked to by oddoneout the official English version, incompatible translation w.r.t. the French notwithstanding?

[french frank]

However, is the pdf linked to by oddoneout the official English version, incompatible translation w.r.t. the French notwithstanding?

I was going to suggest that the DEFRA document might have predated a clarification from the EU but it seems not as it's dated November 2018.

A question was put before EU Commission in Dec 2011 about a recasting (refonte) of the Directive:

En conséquence de la refonte de la directive 2011/65/UE du 8 juin 2011, il convient désormais de déterminer si, et dans quelle mesure, les tuyaux d'orgue en alliages d'étain et de plomb, présents dans presque toutes les orgues d'église, relèvent du champ d'application de la directive 2011/65/UE, et de savoir quelles conséquences il en découle pour la faction d'orgues européenne.

J'invite dès lors la Commission à répondre aux questions suivantes:
1. Les tuyaux d'orgue en alliages d'étain et de plomb relèvent-ils du champ d'application de la directive 2011/65/CE, conformément à l'annexe I de ladite directive?
2. Quand la Commission entend-elle effectuer l'examen du champ d'application de la directive, prévu à l'article 24, paragraphe 2?
3. Dans le cas où la réponse à la question 1 serait positive, une exemption en vertu de l'article 5, combiné à l'annexe V, pourrait-elle être accordée à l'ensemble des orgues à tuyaux ou, du moins, aux tuyaux d'orgue en alliages d'étain et de plomb?

The DEFRA document seems to be referring to a later 'refonte', but how many times does the Commission have to repeat that pipe organs will not be included (unless it definitely says they are)? If a Directive needs to be tweaked a little that seems a better solution than insisting everyone has to stick to the original wording, even if the result wasn't intended. Jobsworths of the World Unite.

[oddoneout]

I thinkthe end result is OK for pipe organs, but my brain is not at its best thanks to a cold so here is the link to the result of the consultation

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/amending-the-use-of-hazardous-substances-in-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-regulations/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response

from which it is possible to track down the relevant EU document which says that pipe organs are excluded.

[french frank]

I thinkthe end result is OK for pipe organs, but my brain is not at its best thanks to a cold so here is the link to the result of the consultation

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/amending-the-use-of-hazardous-substances-in-electrical-and-electronic-equipment-regulations/outcome/summary-of-responses-and-government-response

from which it is possible to track down the relevant EU document which says that pipe organs are excluded.

Not sure how far things have progressed, but it does seem that the Commission has recognised it as a problem to be solved. The Commission has proposed certain amendments. I did find this proposal for one of three 'interventions' (I think this means adding some extra wording?):

A comprehensive scope exclusion for pipe organs to be listed among the exclusions in Article 2(4): In consideration of the very limited changes in the organ construction in recent years, the recycling of the pipe material, and the negligible benefits of its inclusion in RoHS scope, the pipe organ sector is excluded from the RoHS Directive scope

https://www.sgs.com/en/news/2016/03/safeguards-06116-european-commission-publishes-plans-to-amend-the-scope-of-the-rohs-directive

[Lat-Literal]

Good find. I cannot be sure where the misunderstanding happened, merely that it occurred. I was looking back at the correspondence and this is what my MEP wrote, and it seems to be 'the government' rather than the DTI specifically who were mistaken:

1) 28 March 2006 21:51

Dear [french frank]

Thank you for your email of 22nd March regarding pipe organs.

I am aware that here in the South West, from Truro in the West to Salisbury in the East and Gloucester in the North, there are many beautiful and historic cathedrals which people come from far and wide to visit.

The European Commission has stated that the legislation in question will not affect pipe organs in the United Kingdom. Nevertheless, I do share your concerns about this issue and have written accordingly to both the Department for Trade and Industry and the European Commission, asking for further clarification that traditional pipe organs will not be covered by the legislation, which is intended to reduce quantities of harmful substances in circulation.

I will of course revert to you directly I have received a reply.

Yours sincerely,
Graham Watson MEP
Member of the European Parliament for South West England and Gibraltar

2) 18 May 2006 15:54

Dear [french frank]

I write further to previous correspondence concerning pipe organs. You contacted me recently regarding concerns that the EU Waste Electrical and Electronic Equipment (WEEE) and Restriction of Hazardous Substances (RoHS) Directives would prevent the future repair and manufacture of pipe organs containing lead. I replied that I understood that the legislation had not been intended to cover pipe organs but that I had written to both the European Commission and the Department for Trade and Industry for clarification.

By way of an update, I have received a reply from the European Commission, but not from the Department of Trade and Industry.

The interpretation of the legislation by the UK government would have had the effect of subjecting UK pipe organs to both Directives since they contain both lead and electric pumps. However the European Commission does not share the UK’s interpretation.

Officials from the Department of Trade and Industry are due to meet with Commission officials next month to agree a clear exemption for pipe organs from the scope of the legislation, which will also remove the need for organ builders to apply regularly for derogations.

I will keep an eye on the situation and will endeavour to keep you updated as any further developments arise.

Yours sincerely,
Graham Watson MEP
Member of the European Parliament for South West England and Gibraltar

French Frank

Thank you for this detail. I have waded in so I am not going to be categorical on who did the interpretation. However, I note that the EDM from Tony Baldry MP very slightly predates the first letter you received. Similarly, just before your second letter from the MEP, Alan Beith raised the matter again in Parliament. The then minister, Malcolm Wicks, was clear that his Department's line was in line with the Commission's line to the point of sounding irked; as in "I have just said, our view is that it should not apply and that view is strongly held in the Commission. I hope that it will be confirmed at an important meeting in June, so that we can put an end to all this nonsense" (of Parliament). Of any activities after that, I do not know!

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/vo060504/debtext/60504-04.htm#60504-04_sbhd0

[Dave2002]

Following on from the discusssion of lead in pipe organs, I think the difficulties I mentioned earlier with respect to ceramics may also have been due to lead. The Australian government provide this page on the use of lead in ceramics - http://www.environment.gov.au/protec...pottery-making

The problem here is that it’s probably not possible to tell by looking whether a ceramic glaze contains lead, or whether lead can leach out. Thus trade in this kind of product should be regulated.

Having said that, lead pipework hasn’t been completely eliminated for water supplies in some older houses in the U.K., maybe including ours - which may have a short section of feeder pipe. That probably accounts for some of my posts here

[Dave2002]

I don't know which way to turn now

Recently I wrote to several prominent EU members, including Donald Tusk, asking for clarification on various matters relating to the EU and its relations with the UK.

To my amazement, a large envelope dropped through our letter box this morning, enclosing a detailed summary response - with appropriate links to web doecuments, and a couple of book/let(s), which are:

*The European Council and the Council
*Europe in 12 Lessons

The links in the letter include the EU's letter to Mrs May from I think 14th January.

I voted Remain.

I was veering towards thinking we should actually just stay out of the EU - which would have hardly any impact at all on the outcome
unless there was/is to be a second referendum, or Members of Parliament actually take note of my views and modify their rsponses - which would probably also have hardly impact on the eventual outcome.

The response from the EU is at least making me think that I should consider veering back towards my earlier position.

Mr Farage will no doubt be pleased that the EU has wasted time and money on sending me the letter, and providing me with printed documentation.

Whatever happens, I am thankful to the EU members for taking the trouble to respond to me.

I will report back when I've read some of this material - which may take some time.

[french frank]

The then minister, Malcolm Wicks, was clear that his Department's line was in line with the Commission's line

To me, that confirms that the government [Wicks] was upholding the department's opinion: and both were wrong, as the Commission stated explicitly that it 'did not agree with the government's interpretation.' Where did the MPs who supported the EDM get their information from? I don't believe they all combed through all the EU Directives in such detail. Disagreeing with the EU over what the EU meant - that was the 'nonsense'. Is this where the UK media got the idea that other member states (especially France) flouted the EU's rules, while the UK stuck faithfully to them; and were so ever ready to publicise Boris Johnson's 'Euromyths' as if they were true, rather than denouncing them? No combing through Directives on those.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/boris-johnson-peddled-absurd-eu-myths-and-our-disgraceful-press-followed-his

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-boris-johnson-flat-lied/

[french frank]

To my amazement, a large envelope dropped through our letter box this morning, enclosing a detailed summary response - with appropriate links to web doecuments, and a couple of book/let(s), which are:

And on this, I also got a response when I wrote about the EU dropping its grant to the EUYO. "[Drunker] Juncker" stepped in personally to say the orchestra played an important part in bringing young people together, and giving them excellent training with internationally distinguished musicians.

[oddoneout]

Is this where the UK media got the idea that other member states (especially France) flouted the EU's rules, while the UK stuck faithfully to them

Goes back decades, and suited(continues to suit) the establishment not to correct that impression. Many years ago the local rag printed an article from an environmental health officer at the local council regarding some (supposed) EU regulations that had been causing problems to local food related business. It was at best a misrepresentation of the facts(I had been looking into the matter with a friend who was likely to be affected and so had the relevant info to hand) and I challenged the EHO concerned. A correction was subsequently published.
It's the irony of the 'Take Back Control' Brexit rallying cry; the UK has taken too much control in some areas(jobsworths, goldplating etc) and in others not bothered to use what controls may have been available. In both cases any adverse effects have been blamed on the EU. It is my long-held opinion that having the EU as scapegoat(but also doing the donkeywork for issues the UK didn't want to address such as clean beaches and workers'rights) for so long has led to a culture of not taking responsibility, a lack of expertise in government(as opposed to experience of being an MP, which is not the same thing), and an ignorance of the EU and its workings. The consequences can be seen in the current headless chicken behaviour at Westminster.
Apologies for the gross generalisation, but this is something which has concerned me for years.

[ferneyhoughgeliebte]

Apologies for the gross generalisation, but this is something which has concerned me for years.

[teamsaint]

The UK has , over time, often led on workers rights. The relationship between the UK, EU and workers rights is not a simple “ EU leads, UK follows or opts out” model.

Of course , for UK workers, the EU provides a valuable bulwark against possible future UK erosion of rights

[french frank]

Interesting article in Prospect Magazine [subscription, so I quote, my bold], concerning the assumption that EU law must always have priority over UK law:

'[I]n 2014, David Neuberger, former President of the UK Supreme Court, in an extra-judicial lecture, suggested the "German constitution enables a German court to say that German law sometimes trumps EU law. This is an option which is much more rarely, if at all, open to a UK court as we have no constitution to invoke." This statement appeared to suggest national legal sovereignty could override EU law in a way other than the trivial (or the tautologous) way of the 2011 EU Act, but that it would take a different kind of constitution, a written one, like that in Germany, for this to work.

Perhaps Neuberger spoke too soon, and the unwritten British constitution proves capable of handling this issue. For the UK Supreme Court, and Neuberger himself, in two very important recent cases (HS2 in 2014 and Pham in 2015) held there exist fundamental constitutional principles, which may take priority over other laws, including sometimes even fundamental laws such as the European Communities Act 1972 itself. This suggests that, in assessing the relationship between UK and EU law, UK courts may invoke (implicit) constitutional norms, and in so doing restrict the capacity of EU law to take priority over domestic law. In this way, British courts could already protect UK constitutional sovereignty in a way compatible with remaining in the EU. Indeed, as Art 4(2) EU Lisbon treaty already requires that the national identities of EU member states be respected, this would not be completely out of line with EU law.'

Sionaidh Douglas-Scott, Anniversary Chair in Law, Queen Mary University of London, member of the Expert Working Group on the EU Withdrawal Bill and the Rule of Law (chaired by Dominic Grieve) writing in a personal capacity.

Or where there's a will, there's a way.

[Lat-Literal]

To me, that confirms that the government [Wicks] was upholding the department's opinion: and both were wrong, as the Commission stated explicitly that it 'did not agree with the government's interpretation.' Where did the MPs who supported the EDM get their information from? I don't believe they all combed through all the EU Directives in such detail. Disagreeing with the EU over what the EU meant - that was the 'nonsense'. Is this where the UK media got the idea that other member states (especially France) flouted the EU's rules, while the UK stuck faithfully to them; and were so ever ready to publicise Boris Johnson's 'Euromyths' as if they were true, rather than denouncing them? No combing through Directives on those.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2016/07/boris-johnson-peddled-absurd-eu-myths-and-our-disgraceful-press-followed-his

https://inews.co.uk/news/uk/times-bo...son-flat-lied/

Obviously I am not going to go out of my way to defend Mr Blair's Government etc but I am quite keen to pursue actual facts. Bernard Dargassies, head of the French organ builder Manufacture Vosgiennes des Grandes Orgues, said at precisely the same time as all of this discussion was being had it seemed as if "all of a sudden we have discovered that lead is dangerous, like the atomic bomb. It's ridiculous," he said of the Directive. "They can't prevent us from making organ pipes. This law will decimate organ builders." In an interview, he indicated that he had not sought an exemption, but would if necessary. "If we have to act in this way, we will," he said. "We are living in a world where we can't do anything. It is dictatorship." So the French organ builders were saying the same sort of things as Harrison and Harrison in Durham etc as reported in among other places the New York Times.

The French moaned. The British protested with a view to obtaining change. A woman in Europe at the other end of a phone came up with an off the cuff statement to the effect that she was so sorry lovely, cranky old Britain - the emphasis was very much on Britain here as if the problem was not perceived as being anywhere else - was concerned that its dear organ building traditions were at risk. There had been no European intention that any existing organs should be affected. New build was somewhat dismissed as was any need for disposal. But, as Vosgiennes des Grandes Orgues implied, her line was that the answer was all in the exemption application clauses. Where there is no specified exemption, people can apply for one. That was the whole idea of the EU angle. It wasn't clear from what she said if this would mean that an exemption would have to be applied for in every instance and every time.

After 2006 but long before the end of 2011, a proposal was on the table for an amendment to the Directive. It spoke - I will use the word here - of a "need" to amend it so that pipe organs were expressly excluded. This occurred around the time of the publication of RoHS 2 which did not do this but rather expanded the Directive in product scope to all categories of electrical and electronic equipment (EEE). Nor was it addressed some four years later in Directive 2015/863 which was published on 4 June 2015 by the Official Journal of the European Union and added four further substances - four phthalates - to the Directive. On 21 November 2017, more than six years later, a further amending Directive of RoH was issued as (EU) 2017/2102. Of its five provisions, provision 1 was "Pipe organs are excluded from the scope of RoHS 2". At the least, this was a late in the day acceptance that the Directive had been open to misinterpretation for 6-11 years and the text required something clearer. Boris Johnson is a law unto himself and of no relevance here or, in my humble opinion, anywhere else.