More on the "80% EU law" myth

Hitman Actual

Just browsing through Grahnlaw and found this recent post on the EU law/national law proportion issue. A report in France indicates that ~15% (average) of their law is EU-based. Also, he links to this interesting blog post on the issue. Among other things, it debunks the German 84% figure (already done by Scofflaw in a post last week), and the 75% figure used by UKIP. There's also a mention, from here that:

wrote:

EU law is, according to most studies, a much lower proportion (9 percent according to the House of Commons library, 6.3 percent according to the Swedish parliament, 12 percent according to the Finnish parliament and between 12 and 19 percent according to the Lithuanian parliament).

And of course we have our own <30% figure from Generation Yes, and used by Fine Gael.

Something that confuses me is how regulations affect the issue (regulations don't get transposed directly into Irish law). However, I think it's clear that the 84% and 75% eurosceptic figures are completely false and it's time to put them to bed.

PopeBuckfastXVI

What if the EU continued to produce the same amount of Law, and the Dáil upped it's game and started churning out Laws until EU Law was only 1% of Irish law.

That'd be totally cool then right?
:rolleyes:

P. Breathnach

The amount of law made is not very important, nor is who makes it of much consequence. What matters is the impact of that law. Much of what comes from the EU is quiet stuff, although there are a number of egregious cases to keep the red-tops happy (but even at that, some of the red-top stories are myths).

What do I mean by quiet stuff? Let me suppose an example (which might or might not resemble a real case; I don't know). The EU might set down rules on screws designed to be used with powered screwdrivers - head design, depth and pitch of thread, shear strength of material used in manufacture, that sort of thing. The purpose of this might be to ensure the safety of the screws in use, the safety of things made using them, and a suitable balance of ease and difficulty in using or removing them. So if I go out to buy stuff to work on a DIY project, I might have some confidence that things with the "CE" mark meet some reasonable standard. That's good for me. Is it a burden on anybody? Yes, those who make the products must attend to the rules or be excluded from the market. But it's not much of a burden: manufacturers now know the safety standards and what they must do to meet them; they are also protected from unfair competition from those who would produce as cheaply as possible without regard to product safety. So I can imagine seven or eight pages of technical stuff there in the background, the net effect of which is that I can better trust the product I buy.

Would our national legislature have the capacity to conduct such work over a wide range of products and services? No.

Would we have the clout to enforce such rules, given how small our market is? Not to any great extent.

Would such rules impact on my life? Yes, a little, but not in a negative way, and not in a noticeable way unless I got to thinking about it.

Our home-made laws and regulations are, on average, more noticeable.

conchubhar1

where could one see what laws are passed in ireland that came from the eu?

O'Morris

Hitman Actual wrote:

Also, he links to this interesting blog post on the issue. Among other things, it debunks the German 84% figure (already done by Scofflaw in a post last week), and the 75% figure used by UKIP.

You forgot to include the 9% figure which has been debunked in the same blog post. That figure has also been shown to be innacurate as it doesn't include the regulations.

If you read that blog post again you'll see the conclusion reached is that we just don't know for sure how many of our laws are being made in the EU and so neither side can claim with any certainty that they know what the actual figure is.

Hitman Actual wrote:

And of course we have our own <30% figure from Generation Yes, and used by Fine Gael.

That <30% figure has been shown to be out of date on another thread. The 30% figure is taken as an average over the last 16 years but it doesn't reflect the increase in the percentage in the last few years. If you look at this you'll see that the percentage has increased since the passing of the Nice Treaty. The current average is closer to 35%. Even that figure needs to be treated with [euro]scepticism though as it doesn't include the regulations. It also assumes that all EU-originated laws must contain a reference to the EU but no evidence has been produced that this is necessarily the case.

Instead of talking about a fixed percentage, it would be more accurate to say that the percentage fluctuates from year to year, with a low of 25% in 2007 and a high of 45% in 2005.

Hitman Actual wrote:

Something that confuses me is how regulations affect the issue (regulations don't get transposed directly into Irish law).

The definition of an EU regulation:

“A regulation has general application, is binding in its entirety and is directly applicable in all member states … Thus regulations are the most powerful lawmaking tools available to the Community institutions. Without any intervention by national governments or legislatures, regulations become part of the national legal systems of each member state”
- S.Weatherill and P. Beaumont, EU Law, page 150, 1999 edition

Any attempt to work out the percentage of our laws made in the EU needs to include a count of the regulations. A study that ignores the regulations is a study that deserves to be ignored itself.

Hitman Actual wrote:

However, I think it's clear that the 84% and 75% eurosceptic figures are completely false and it's time to put them to bed.

It's also clear that the <30% used by Fine Gael is dishonest and needs to be put to bed. More than a third of our laws are now being made outside of our national parliament.

For me, the most important finding of the Generation Yes study was the trend it revealed. The evidence shows that the percentage of our laws made in the EU has been rising steadily over the last two decades, with the percentage almost twice as high in 2009 as it was in 2000.

As a big increase in the percentage come after the passing of the Nice Treaty, we're almost certain to see another major increase with the passing of the Lisbon Treaty. Under Lisbon, the EU will be granted the power to adopt legislative acts dealing with 40 new areas.

I think Fine Gael and Generation Yes made a big mistake when they decided to make an issue out of this. They'll live to regret it when the next Lisbon referendum comes around.

getz

new laws/regulations 2009 by the EU--EU law bans farmers from using combine harvesters on wet soil---romania EU law bans horse-drawn carts from main roads,-- radio waves -EU law a control of radio wavelenghts ment that the RNLI has been told the will have to increase their annual payment for using a dedicated wavelenght, on the way the EU want to track your car on journeys-- new EU laws of what consitutes a island, if it has a bridge less than one mile ,its not a island,EU law-dont cross the green man ,unless its the correct shade of green-- also the EU wish control of all EU naval bases -[this to me shows there military ambitions]

PopeBuckfastXVI

getz wrote: »

new laws/regulations 2009 by the EU--EU law bans farmers from using combine harvesters on wet soil---romania EU law bans horse-drawn carts from main roads,-- radio waves -EU law a control of radio wavelenghts ment that the RNLI has been told the will have to increase their annual payment for using a dedicated wavelenght, on the way the EU want to track your car on journeys-- new EU laws of what consitutes a island, if it has a bridge less than one mile ,its not a island,EU law-dont cross the green man ,unless its the correct shade of green-- also the EU wish control of all EU naval bases -[this to me shows there military ambitions]

Hi Getz,

I'd like to read up on those laws and regulations, have you got links please?

getz

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hi Getz,

I'd like to read up on those laws and regulations, have you got links please?

the best euoseptic web site that wont coverover the cracks is www.ukip.org when you get it the web there is a lot of info and vidios

PopeBuckfastXVI

getz wrote: »

the best euoseptic web site that wont coverover the cracks is www.ukip.org when you get it the web there is a lot of info and vidios

Well I'm really interested in those laws you just quoted, could you please provide links directly to the EU directives, I think they're all online?

P. Breathnach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

I'd like to read up on those laws and regulations, have you got links please?

I found one (on islands): http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth114_en.htm

I started on that one because it looked so improbable. The EU does not use miles as units.

getz

this is a stupid one -brussels ruling-forbids local bus services longer than 30 miles/it means that drivers have to pull up,order every one off the bus then change the route number,then every one gets back on the bus to finish there journey,

PopeBuckfastXVI

getz wrote: »

this is a stupid one -brussels ruling-forbids local bus services longer than 30 miles/it means that drivers have to pull up,order every one off the bus then change the route number,then every one gets back on the bus to finish there journey,

Hi Getz,

I'd like to see this one too... could you provide the link please?

gizmo555

Well, it's good to see here that the European Court of Justice has today (June 11) cited article 51(1)(b) of council regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 in upholding our right to make chocolate bunnies!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/11/lindt-chocolate-bunnies-trademark-dispute

PopeBuckfastXVI

gizmo555 wrote: »

Well, it's good to see here that the European Court of Justice has today (June 11) cited article 51(1)(b) of council regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 in upholding our right to make chocolate bunnies!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/11/lindt-chocolate-bunnies-trademark-dispute

Indeed, it would be bad for business, and bad for the consumer if companies were allowed to trademark whole objects. What would be next? Someone trademarks the basic shape of a car?

Good the see the EU standing up to a big corporation, for the benefit of the consumer.

View

Let's not let reality intrude on Getz postings, he is after all on a roll.

getz

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hi Getz,

I'd like to see this one too... could you provide the link please?

try this web site i believe it now has links--www.absurdeu.com

PopeBuckfastXVI

getz wrote: »

try this web site i believe it now has links--www.absurdeu.com

I'd prefer to not have to wade through some random blog, can you just point me at the official text, which you presumably read yourself?

P. Breathnach

Combine harvesters: http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/euromyths/myth175_en.htm

mickoneill30

getz wrote: »

try this web site i believe it now has links--www.absurdeu.com

Yeah it has links. To itself with nothing to back up the blogs.

Top Entry
Farmer Giles banned from using combine harvester

Click it and it brings you to

An EU law bans British farmers from using their combine harvesters on wet soil

That's it. That's the entire entry. The other links are similar.

Poor old Farmer Giles though. The EU has it in for him. :rolleyes:

Edit: Ah hang on lots those entries are posted on 1st April. I'd assume they were jokes except the ones before that are of a similar high standard.

getz

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582692eu-forces-passe

---

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2199214/eu-rules-ban-sale-of-too-small-kiwis.html

PopeBuckfastXVI

getz wrote: »

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1582692eu-forces-passe

---

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2199214/eu-rules-ban-sale-of-too-small-kiwis.html

Sorry
We cannot find the page you are looking for.

* The page may have been moved, updated or deleted.
* Or you may have typed the web address incorrectly. Please check the address and spelling.

404 - still that's actually a telegraph.co.uk link

Really though, I'd just like a direct link to the official text of the directives you are referencing.

You have read them yourself Getz? I mean, otherwise how could you be writing about them here?

Just a simple link to each directive you're telling us the EU has made on these issues would be great.

P. Breathnach

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

...Just a simple link to each directive you're telling us the EU has made on these issues would be great.

That's quite a big ask: that somebody who makes a claim should have an authoritative source or backing for that claim. Is that an EU standard?

oscarBravo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

That's quite a big ask: that somebody who makes a claim should have an authoritative source or backing for that claim. Is that an EU standard?

Actually, we'll shortly have to transpose an EU law into the Politics charter requiring just that.

Hitman Actual

O'Morris wrote: »

You forgot to include the 9% figure which has been debunked in the same blog post. That figure has also been shown to be innacurate as it doesn't include the regulations.

I didn't forget anything. I posted some links, and commented on them as per the charter, but I wasn't going to summarise the whole piece.

O'Morris wrote: »

If you read that blog post again you'll see the conclusion reached is that we just don't know for sure how many of our laws are being made in the EU and so neither side can claim with any certainty that they know what the actual figure is.

Point acknowledged.

O'Morris wrote: »

If you look at this ...

Considering I posted that link in the OP, I don't need to look at it again. I'm not trying to hide anything.

O'Morris wrote: »

Any attempt to work out the percentage of our laws made in the EU needs to include a count of the regulations. A study that ignores the regulations is a study that deserves to be ignored itself.

It's also clear that the <30% used by Fine Gael is dishonest and needs to be put to bed. More than a third of our laws are now being made outside of our national parliament.

I've already queried the issue of regulations in the OP; again, I'm not trying to gloss over the issue. Like you, I believe it to be an issue. As regards the validity of the Generation Yes/Fine Gael figures, in the context of SI's containing a reference to the EU, the figures are correct (in fact, Gen Yes say the figures are skewed towards overestimating the number of SI's affected.) I agree they don't show the full picture, but that doesn't mean they can't used to give some indication of the effect of EU legislation, once the regulation issue is also acknowledged.

On the other hand, the German 84% figure, and the UKIP 75% are demonstrably false, and have no validity whatsoever. The 80% figure is repeatedly quoted by eurosceptics (and even some pro-EU MEPs looking to get elected, bloody fools!), but there is absolutely no valid basis for the figure.

O'Morris wrote: »

For me, the most important finding of the Generation Yes study was the trend it revealed. The evidence shows that the percentage of our laws made in the EU has been rising steadily over the last two decades, with the percentage almost twice as high in 2009 as it was in 2000.

As a big increase in the percentage come after the passing of the Nice Treaty, we're almost certain to see another major increase with the passing of the Lisbon Treaty. Under Lisbon, the EU will be granted the power to adopt legislative acts dealing with 40 new areas.

A lot of the new areas are shared competences where the EU only has a support role, iirc. I agree there will almost definitely be some increase in legislation, but Lisbon is nowhere near the radical Treaty that Nice was, so hopefully the effect won't be as pronounced. Lisbon really is a relatively innocuous Treaty.

O'Morris wrote: »

I think Fine Gael and Generation Yes made a big mistake when they decided to make an issue out of this. They'll live to regret it when the next Lisbon referendum comes around.

I completely disagree. What's wrong with getting the issue out in the open, where someone might do a complete study of the amount of EU legislation, including the effect of regulations. If this site is anything to go by, the Yes side are very amenable to facts, and are not trying to hide anything. I, for one, would welcome an accurate figure (good or bad), as I'm sure many others here would.

Hitman Actual

gizmo555 wrote: »

Well, it's good to see here that the European Court of Justice has today (June 11) cited article 51(1)(b) of council regulation (EC) No 40/94 of 20 December 1993 in upholding our right to make chocolate bunnies!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2009/jun/11/lindt-chocolate-bunnies-trademark-dispute

That article doesn't make the EU appear in a bad light at all; on the contrary it shows the benefits of being able to bring a case to the ECJ. It's great that you find the reference to 'chocolate bunnies' so amusing and all, but in reality it's just a basic trademark case.

P. Breathnach

Hitman Actual wrote: »

That article doesn't make the EU appear in a bad light at all;

Of course it doesn't. It's not an EU issue.

on the contrary it shows the benefits of being able to bring a case to the ECJ. It's great that you find the reference to 'chocolate bunnies' so amusing and all, but in reality it's just a basic trademark case.

Patent and trademark law, which is not particularly an EU thing, leads to plenty of absurd disputes. Such is life, especially when there is money involved.

gizmo555

Hitman Actual wrote: »

That article doesn't make the EU appear in a bad light at all; on the contrary it shows the benefits of being able to bring a case to the ECJ. It's great that you find the reference to 'chocolate bunnies' so amusing and all, but in reality it's just a basic trademark case.

Ah lads it was only a joke - sorry I didn't put in a few smiley faces - here's some :):):)

conchubhar1

conchubhar1 wrote: »

where could one see what laws are passed in ireland that came from the eu?

? ?

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

? ?

There's no readily digestible list that I'm aware of, to come up with your answer you'll need to trawl through the Irish statue books, and the EU directives etc.

If you actually take on the task and come up with a list I'd be delighted if you shared

P. Breathnach

gizmo555 wrote: »

Ah lads it was only a joke - sorry I didn't put in a few smiley faces - here's some :):):)

The problem with attempting a joke here is that we have participants in this discussion who are prepared to believe the most arrant nonsense and post it here as if it were fact.

conchubhar1

where could one access both of those?

i would be glad to make a list as i would be reading trough them anyway - and taking a list as i am only human and to remember and cross refrence those would be immpossible

PopeBuckfastXVI

conchubhar1 wrote: »

where could one access both of those?

i would be glad to make a list as i would be reading trough them anyway - and taking a list as i am only human and to remember and cross refrence those would be immpossible

A good place to start would be
Irish
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/

and
EU
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/en/index.htm

PopeBuckfastXVI

It's worth remembering, of course, in any discussion on EU law, that seeing as we have a hand in drafting it, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that were we not in the EU we would probably have legislated for many of these things ourselves.

conchubhar1

true we would have - as we are told many are harmless and good for europe

which im sure are true - but i have an interest and am checking up for myself but if people want to see it they can ask for a list if i ever get around to doing it... it will be ridiculously massive in fairness

hhm 2008 law is not on that website

passive

conchubhar1 wrote: »

hhm 2008 law is not on that website

oh, you'll definitely need 2008... That's when they switched from normal and unspectacular laws to the Fascist Internment Acts. Don't let all the preceding years fool you, 2008 was 99% EU laws.

K-9

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

It's worth remembering, of course, in any discussion on EU law, that seeing as we have a hand in drafting it, it wouldn't be unreasonable to assume that were we not in the EU we would probably have legislated for many of these things ourselves.

Indeed and many good ones may not have been passed resulting in us missing out.

conchubhar1

passive wrote: »

oh, you'll definitely need 2008... That's when they switched from normal and unspectacular laws to the Fascist Internment Acts. Don't let all the preceding years fool you, 2008 was 99% EU laws.

:mad:

when did i say that?

''2008 was 99% EU laws.''

ah that makes perfect sense i know what you are trying to say but the english is muck much like your crap uncalled for outburst

passive

conchubhar1 wrote: »

:mad:

when did i say that?

''2008 was 99% EU laws.''

ah that makes perfect sense i know what you are trying to say but the english is muck much like your crap uncalled for outburst

hmm.... I'm pretty sure my English was just fine, if my point was a bit convoluted.

conchubhar1

your point was uncalled for

as i never stated or even implied what you said

Scofflaw

Whoa - OK, now passive is making a joke. Nobody shoot anybody!

moderately,
Scofflaw

conchubhar1

ha ah haha an oh lordy aahhh haaaa wew phew