The post above is a stand alone but there is scope for some editorial comment here. First, there is a tendency - I will put it no more strongly than that - for all sides to present Britain and the British as somehow distinct in their concerns and all other nationalities as having an entirely different agenda which is in sync with that of EU. What is written is just one of millions of examples which proves this is not the case. This is neither an argument for the EU or against it. It simply says that much as nations or sections of nations can be in line in their support for what has been done by the EU so they can be in line in opposition to it or, to pursue the softer middle road, in their interpretation of it. Next, connections of a symbolic nature are easily made to underpin a political point, eg "Boris Johnson is proven in a number of circumstances to have uttered falsehoods. Boris is against Britain's membership of the EU (although in truth he is best described as a remainer who chose to take a different line overnight) and, therefore, symbolises that cause." I do not see that in Kate Hoey who is a true individual with what to my mind are peculiar attitudes on hunting or Labour's John Mann in whom I find much to admire or the Green Party's Jenny Jones. What I see in Johnson is the symbol of the fanciful over-ambitious politician. There are several anywhere at any time, be it Jeffrey Archer, Ken Livingstone, Emmanuel Macron, or in Italy a self confessed clown.
On the procedural points, this matter ultimately straddled the Governments of Blair, Brown, Cameron and May. That is pretty ludicrous when it took less than a week for 27 countries to supposedly read nearly 400 pages on Britain's withdrawal and decide that every single word of it was just fine and needed no scrutiny. The EU drags its feet. It may well be that it does mostly when it doesn't want to take action that would imply that it had originally been wrong. The absence of any explanatory text unlike that which often accompanies Statutory Instruments conveys to me an element of aloofness and bad grace. But to go back to the beginning, Mr Wicks was able to say that the Government agreed with the Commission and at least imply heavily that it didn't agree with the Commission because the wording was loose. It all depended on whether you took note of the exemption application procedure and felt it was adequate or rather thought that what was needed was a specific derogation clause. Politicians can wiggle in that sort of space so as to change their line from one day to the next. Of course, we also need clarity when talking about the view of the EU or the EU Commission to know where that is coming from and to what extent it is official or could be considered such.
This, though, is not entirely or even mainly the fault of the EU - and I surprised you there. No. Just as with domestic law, it is the full process which matters. It was for the EU here to relay clearly its intentions to Governments. It was for Governments to note them and to convey those intentions to anyone with a potential interest. It was for anyone with a potential interest to relay their concerns back to Governments, whether there was a formal consultation process or not, and for Governments to make wise decisions on the validity or otherwise of what was being said to them and to convey anything of substance on to the EU. Should there be awkwardness at the European level on what has been raised, that requires follow-up. More dialogue with - let's use their word - "stakeholders" and if needed more pursuance "upward" politically. Much of what is presented on pipe organs suggests that there were failures in some or all of these stages including where the proposals emanated in Europe. A lack of imagination in determining scope. A focus on what were thought to be the priority areas. Inadequate communication. Such things happen - they happen in purely domestic affairs too - and one would expect them to on occasion. It is human frailty as well as a characteristic of huge bureaucracies. What should not in any circumstances occur is the delay of umpteen years to adequately sort it out, especially when the text is being altered in other ways.
On the procedural points, this matter ultimately straddled the Governments of Blair, Brown, Cameron and May. That is pretty ludicrous when it took less than a week for 27 countries to supposedly read nearly 400 pages on Britain's withdrawal and decide that every single word of it was just fine and needed no scrutiny. The EU drags its feet. It may well be that it does mostly when it doesn't want to take action that would imply that it had originally been wrong. The absence of any explanatory text unlike that which often accompanies Statutory Instruments conveys to me an element of aloofness and bad grace. But to go back to the beginning, Mr Wicks was able to say that the Government agreed with the Commission and at least imply heavily that it didn't agree with the Commission because the wording was loose. It all depended on whether you took note of the exemption application procedure and felt it was adequate or rather thought that what was needed was a specific derogation clause. Politicians can wiggle in that sort of space so as to change their line from one day to the next. Of course, we also need clarity when talking about the view of the EU or the EU Commission to know where that is coming from and to what extent it is official or could be considered such.
This, though, is not entirely or even mainly the fault of the EU - and I surprised you there. No. Just as with domestic law, it is the full process which matters. It was for the EU here to relay clearly its intentions to Governments. It was for Governments to note them and to convey those intentions to anyone with a potential interest. It was for anyone with a potential interest to relay their concerns back to Governments, whether there was a formal consultation process or not, and for Governments to make wise decisions on the validity or otherwise of what was being said to them and to convey anything of substance on to the EU. Should there be awkwardness at the European level on what has been raised, that requires follow-up. More dialogue with - let's use their word - "stakeholders" and if needed more pursuance "upward" politically. Much of what is presented on pipe organs suggests that there were failures in some or all of these stages including where the proposals emanated in Europe. A lack of imagination in determining scope. A focus on what were thought to be the priority areas. Inadequate communication. Such things happen - they happen in purely domestic affairs too - and one would expect them to on occasion. It is human frailty as well as a characteristic of huge bureaucracies. What should not in any circumstances occur is the delay of umpteen years to adequately sort it out, especially when the text is being altered in other ways.
Comment