Percentage of Laws.

Iwasfrozen

Does anyone know what percentage of laws actually come from Brussels ?
Thanks in advance.

FutureTaoiseach

FG claimed it was 30% but I understand that was based on the narrowest possible definition of "our laws", only including EU directives, as they alone have to be transposed into national law. They didn't include those which don't have to be transposed but come into effect anyway, including regulations.

Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

FG claimed it was 30% but I understand that was based on the narrowest possible definition of "our laws", only including EU directives, as they alone have to be transposed into national law. They didn't include those which don't have to be transposed but come into effect anyway, including regulations.

They gave two figures - 28% excluding regulations, 43% including them. It's been pointed out, though, that most regulations are just that, 'regulations' equivalent to regulations issued by our own civil service. Calling them "law" is a way of pretending they're the same thing as an Act of the Oireachtas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

FutureTaoiseach

Scofflaw wrote: »

They gave two figures - 28% excluding regulations, 43% including them. It's been pointed out, though, that most regulations are just that, 'regulations' equivalent to regulations issued by our own civil service. Calling them "law" is a way of pretending they're the same thing as an Act of the Oireachtas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But EU regulations are laws to all intents and purposes. They are EU law. Surely EU law is law? And surely an important difference is that the Irish civil service can't initiate legislation without the consent of the executive, whereas the Commission is the executive?

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And surely an important difference is that the Irish civil service can't initiate legislation without the consent of the executive, whereas the Commission is the executive?

Are you trying to claim that the EU Commission is the equivalent of the civil service?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Are you trying to claim that the EU Commission is the equivalent of the civil service?

No. I'm disputing Scofflaw's analogy between the Commission and the civil service.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

No. I'm disputing Scofflaw's analogy between the Commission and the civil service.

Scofflaw didn't make that analogy. He made an analogy between EU regulations and civil service regulations. If you want to dispute that analogy, go ahead.

For starters, you seem to be under the illusion that the Commission alone creates regulations. You might want to read up on that.

View

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

But EU regulations are laws to all intents and purposes. They are EU law. Surely EU law is law? And surely an important difference is that the Irish civil service can't initiate legislation without the consent of the executive, whereas the Commission is the executive?

The Commission is the executive AND the commission officials (i.e. civil servants equivalents) who work for them. Just as the Government is the executive (i.e. cabinet) AND the civil servants who work for them.

In both cases, the respective legal sections do the actual drafting of the laws/regulations only with the consent of their respective executives. In other words, when they get instructions to do so.

Its probably just as well the legal sections do so - it would be a terrifying prospect to have many of our Government Ministers or Commissioners drafting our laws/regulations on their own. :eek:

gizmo555

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's been pointed out, though, that most regulations are just that, 'regulations' equivalent to regulations issued by our own civil service. Calling them "law" is a way of pretending they're the same thing as an Act of the Oireachtas.

Whether they originate with the EU or domestically, they are laws, in the sense that they must be complied with and in most cases, failure to do so is an offence which may result in fines and/or imprisonment.

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

Scofflaw didn't make that analogy. He made an analogy between EU regulations and civil service regulations. If you want to dispute that analogy, go ahead.

For starters, you seem to be under the illusion that the Commission alone creates regulations. You might want to read up on that.

I know that can only initiate them, but the Irish civil service can't without permission from the executive. That was the point I was making.

gizmo555

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

And surely an important difference is that the Irish civil service can't initiate legislation without the consent of the executive, whereas the Commission is the executive?

Not so. To give an example that I happen to be familiar with, the Irish Aviation Authority is the body in charge of regulating civil aviation in Ireland. It can issue regulations in the form of statutory instruments on its own authority without reference to the government.

FutureTaoiseach

gizmo555 wrote: »

Not so. To give an example that I happen to be familiar with, the Irish Aviation Authority is the body in charge of regulating civil aviation in Ireland. It can issue regulations in the form of statutory instruments on its own authority without reference to the government.

Yes but they only have that power because the politicians gave it to them. EU Regulations come from the three elements of the EU legislature, namely the executive/Commission, the Council of Ministers (and sometimes the European Council) and usually the European Parliament. These EU institutions are using powers given to them in the Treaties, whereas you are talking about an authority to which power has been delegated by the politicians.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

Yes but they only have that power because the politicians gave it to them. EU Regulations come from the three elements of the EU legislature, namely the executive/Commission, the Council of Ministers (and sometimes the European Council) and usually the European Parliament. These EU institutions are using powers given to them in the Treaties, whereas you are talking about an authority to which power has been delegated by the politicians.

And who gave the EU institutions the powers they exercise under the treaties?

FutureTaoiseach

oscarBravo wrote: »

And who gave the EU institutions the powers they exercise under the treaties?

The member states. I am not complaining about that. I am simply differentiating between the role of national civil servants and that of an executive, in response to Scofflaw. The context is that this thread is talking about what percentage of our laws are EU laws, which obviously brings up the question of what constitutes a "law". I am arguing that EU regulations constitute laws. Scofflaw doesn't seem to agree with me on that though.

oscarBravo

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

The context is that this thread is talking about what percentage of our laws are EU laws, which obviously brings up the question of what constitutes a "law".

No, it brings up the question of what constitutes "our laws". EU regulations form part of the body of EU law, but are not transposed into Irish law.

P. Breathnach

FutureTaoiseach wrote: »

... I am simply differentiating between the role of national civil servants and that of an executive, in response to Scofflaw. The context is that this thread is talking about what percentage of our laws are EU laws, which obviously brings up the question of what constitutes a "law". I am arguing that EU regulations constitute laws. Scofflaw doesn't seem to agree with me on that though.

Many people, and I suspect that you are among them, are playing a different game. There is a strong implication in discussions about the percentage of our laws that come from Brussels that the EU is supplanting the Oireachtas.

FutureTaoiseach

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Many people, and I suspect that you are among them, are playing a different game. There is a strong implication in discussions about the percentage of our laws that come from Brussels that the EU is supplanting the Oireachtas.

I would compare it to a federation in the sense that whereas American states find themselves hemmed in by federal law which they mustn't contravene in their own legislation, the same is the case with legislation passed by the Oireachtas. Of course, the Oireachtas could go ahead and legislate in a manner that contradicts EU legislation, but it would end up in the ECJ and the relevant legislation being ruled as being in contravention with EU legislation, with the possibility the court would impose fines on Ireland. Now before someone reminds me of the German Constitutional Court ruling saying the EU is not a federation, I would add that they can only interpret in the context of the German constitution.

Scofflaw

This seems a reasonable place to clarify the law-making process in the EU, for FutureTaoiseach's benefit if non-one else's. A large number of people seem to be under the impression that the Commission is the "government" of the EU, and EU legislation simply flows from the Commission as it does from our own government. For that reason, I'll concentrate on the Commission's role in the process, rather than the details of co-decision et al.

First, the national process obviously doesn't simply consist of the Cabinet making laws. As most people know, the Cabinet sets the policy agenda, and makes the necessary legislative proposals in the form of Bills. However, before those Bills can become law in the form of Acts, they must pass the Dáil and the Seanad. Only the Houses of the Oireachtas have the power to initiate Acts, and certain Acts (particularly financial Acts) can only be initiated by the Dáil.

Before a Bill is initiated its contents will have been discussed and approved by the Cabinet. The contents of the Bill is obviously not drafted personally by the relevant Minister, but is instead drafted by the civil servants of the Minister's Department. In some cases, external experts may be involved. Where it is felt necessary, public consultation may take place, through the use of a Green Paper, requests for submissions, and contact with relevant corporate bodies. The actual text of the Bill is drawn up by the Parliamentary Draftsmen, who are attached to the Attorney General's Office.

Now, as gizmo has pointed out, there is also the Statutory Instrument, which is "an order, regulation, rule, bye-law, warrant, licence, certificate, direction, notice, guideline or other like document made, issued, granted or otherwise created by or under an Act [of the Oireachtas]". This is, in essence, the use of delegated authority, but the product is no less legally binding for that. While certain Statutory Instruments are recorded as such by the Oireachtas, many statutory instruments are not centrally recorded.

So, there are various elements in the process:

1. setting the policy agenda - the Cabinet
2. initiating legislation - the Cabinet
3. drawing up of legislation - the national Civil Service
4. drafting of legislation - Attorney General's Office
5. debate, amendment, rejection/acceptance of Bill - Oireachtas
6. implementation of law - the national Civil Service

The EU process, obviously, is somewhat different:

1. setting the policy agenda - European Council
2. initiating legislation - the Commission
3. drawing up of legislation - the national Civil Services and Commission
4. drafting of legislation - the national Civil Services and the three EU Legal Services
5. debate, amendment, rejection/acceptance of the legislation - Council of Ministers and European Parliament
6. implementation of law - the national Civil Services and Commission

For some reason, very few people outside the civil service or the EU appear to be aware of what actually happens at step 3. The Commission has a civil service of 38,000 - far too small to draw up European legislation even if it did nothing else. Instead, EU legislation is drawn up by the civil services of the member states, passed around, and eventually OK'd by the Commission. Again, during that process, public consultation may take place, through the use of a Commission Green Paper, requests for submissions, and contact with relevant corporate bodies.

The Commission, it is important to note, doesn't set the policy agenda for the EU - that is set by the European Council (or European Summit), which is the council of the heads of government of the member states. The reason the Commission has the sole right of legislative initiative is to check that European legislation is European - that it doesn't favour some countries at the expense of others, and that it is not legislation that could be better done nationally (this being something which Lisbon improves by involving the national parliaments in the subsidiarity checks). Since 'European' legislation is actually drawn up by the national civil services, it is not strictly necessary for the Commission itself to contain a Commissioner from every member state in order to ensure balance, but the presence of an "Irish" Commissioner certainly gives a degree more legitimacy to the outcome.

While the Commission initiates all legislation with respect to the EC (essentially, the Common Market), it cannot simply pass it into law. The Council of Ministers and the European Parliament must give their assent to the legislation, and have the power also to amend the proposed legislation before accepting or rejecting it. The Commission has no right of legislative initiative in respect of Justice and Home Affairs, and a shared right (with the Council) of initiative over CSFP.

To describe the Commission, then, as the equivalent of a national Cabinet, is to claim for them a far greater role in legislation than they actually have. A national Cabinet has the power both to set its own policy agenda, and to issue the necessary legislative proposals to carry out that agenda. By virtue of (usually) controlling the necessary seats in the national Parliament, the party that forms the Cabinet also usually has the power to get its proposed legislation passed.

The Commission, by contrast, does not set the policy agenda, and controls neither the Council of Ministers nor the European Parliament, both of which bodies also can and do request the Commission to draft legislation they feel is required.

Essentially, the Commission's role in EU legislation is to act as a central filter, to ensure that legislation is balanced and necessary at the European level, and simultaneously to give it a coherent and uniform legal basis. It is not the captain of the ship, but the pilot.

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

The too long/didn't read version of Scofflaw's post:

The Commission isn't like a national Government, it's powers are far more limited and more so these powers are area specific. Thinking of it as being like a national Government will just end up with you making false analogies. Basically the Commission is hog tied by the national Governments and isn't a fully independent entity that can force its will on countries.

molloyjh

Thanks for that Scofflaw. I may steal it for future reference if you don't mind......

Victor

gizmo555 wrote: »

Not so. To give an example that I happen to be familiar with, the Irish Aviation Authority is the body in charge of regulating civil aviation in Ireland. It can issue regulations in the form of statutory instruments on its own authority without reference to the government.

All Statutory Instruments (mostly regualtions and ministerial orders) are subject to being put before the Oireachtas. If the Oireachtas doesn't like it, they can kill it. In reality, most are common sense sets of rules for carrying on business. That many come from the EU at some stage or other simply means that at least someone has proof-read them.

If people want the % of EU legislation reduced, they could set themselves to work on producing more Irish legislation, in particular on reform, consolidation / re-statement and abolition of defunct pre-independence statutes.

Scofflaw

Victor wrote: »

All Statutory Instruments (mostly regualtions and ministerial orders) are subject to being put before the Oireachtas. If the Oireachtas doesn't like it, they can kill it. In reality, most are common sense sets of rules for carrying on business. That many come from the EU at some stage or other simply means that at least someone has proof-read them.

If people want the % of EU legislation reduced, they could set themselves to work on producing more Irish legislation, in particular on reform, consolidation / re-statement and abolition of defunct pre-independence statutes.

I think you're thinking there of the Statutory Orders that are issued by the Cabinet, and which you'll find listed in the Irish Statute Book. Regulations of the sort gizmo was referring to are also technically 'statutory orders', but as far as I'm aware are neither put before the Oireachtas nor recorded centrally. The definition of 'statutory order' is extremely wide - it covers, amongst other things, bye-laws.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Victor

No, AFAIK, certain state agencies (I think its only agencies) have the power to issue SIs, but are fairly limited to their own scope. For example the RPA Luas bye-laws are SIs and the IAA schedule of charges are SIs. This are typically put in place at a board or executive level, with no democratic input until after the fact.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

They gave two figures - 28% excluding regulations, 43% including them. It's been pointed out, though, that most regulations are just that, 'regulations' equivalent to regulations issued by our own civil service. Calling them "law" is a way of pretending they're the same thing as an Act of the Oireachtas.

cordially,
Scofflaw

According to the EU Treaties (up to NICE Treaty) that we signed and ratification since 2002, they (EU Directives, EU Decisions and EU Regulations) are not only part of our Irish Law but has the same standing as Irish Law and such Acts passed in the Oireachtas.

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

This seems a reasonable place to clarify the law-making process in the EU, for FutureTaoiseach's benefit if non-one else's. A large number of people seem to be under the impression that the Commission is the "government" of the EU, and EU legislation simply flows from the Commission as it does from our own government. For that reason, I'll concentrate on the Commission's role in the process, rather than the details of co-decision et al.

First, the national process obviously doesn't simply consist of the Cabinet making laws. As most people know, the Cabinet sets the policy agenda, and makes the necessary legislative proposals in the form of Bills. However, before those Bills can become law in the form of Acts, they must pass the Dáil and the Seanad. Only the Houses of the Oireachtas have the power to initiate Acts, and certain Acts (particularly financial Acts) can only be initiated by the Dáil.

Before a Bill is initiated its contents will have been discussed and approved by the Cabinet. The contents of the Bill is obviously not drafted personally by the relevant Minister, but is instead drafted by the civil servants of the Minister's Department. In some cases, external experts may be involved. Where it is felt necessary, public consultation may take place, through the use of a Green Paper, requests for submissions, and contact with relevant corporate bodies. The actual text of the Bill is drawn up by the Parliamentary Draftsmen, who are attached to the Attorney General's Office.

Now, as gizmo has pointed out, there is also the Statutory Instrument, which is "an order, regulation, rule, bye-law, warrant, licence, certificate, direction, notice, guideline or other like document made, issued, granted or otherwise created by or under an Act [of the Oireachtas]". This is, in essence, the use of delegated authority, but the product is no less legally binding for that. While certain Statutory Instruments are recorded as such by the Oireachtas, many statutory instruments are not centrally recorded.

So, there are various elements in the process:

1. setting the policy agenda - the Cabinet
2. initiating legislation - the Cabinet
3. drawing up of legislation - the national Civil Service
4. drafting of legislation - Attorney General's Office
5. debate, amendment, rejection/acceptance of Bill - Oireachtas
6. implementation of law - the national Civil Service

The EU process, obviously, is somewhat different:

1. setting the policy agenda - European Council
2. initiating legislation - the Commission
3. drawing up of legislation - the national Civil Services and Commission
4. drafting of legislation - the national Civil Services and the three EU Legal Services
5. debate, amendment, rejection/acceptance of the legislation - Council of Ministers and European Parliament
6. implementation of law - the national Civil Services and Commission

For some reason, very few people outside the civil service or the EU appear to be aware of what actually happens at step 3. The Commission has a civil service of 38,000 - far too small to draw up European legislation even if it did nothing else. Instead, EU legislation is drawn up by the civil services of the member states, passed around, and eventually OK'd by the Commission. Again, during that process, public consultation may take place, through the use of a Commission Green Paper, requests for submissions, and contact with relevant corporate bodies.

The Commission, it is important to note, doesn't set the policy agenda for the EU - that is set by the European Council (or European Summit), which is the council of the heads of government of the member states. The reason the Commission has the sole right of legislative initiative is to check that European legislation is European - that it doesn't favour some countries at the expense of others, and that it is not legislation that could be better done nationally (this being something which Lisbon improves by involving the national parliaments in the subsidiarity checks). Since 'European' legislation is actually drawn up by the national civil services, it is not strictly necessary for the Commission itself to contain a Commissioner from every member state in order to ensure balance, but the presence of an "Irish" Commissioner certainly gives a degree more legitimacy to the outcome.

While the Commission initiates all legislation with respect to the EC (essentially, the Common Market), it cannot simply pass it into law. The Council of Ministers and the European Parliament must give their assent to the legislation, and have the power also to amend the proposed legislation before accepting or rejecting it. The Commission has no right of legislative initiative in respect of Justice and Home Affairs, and a shared right (with the Council) of initiative over CSFP.

To describe the Commission, then, as the equivalent of a national Cabinet, is to claim for them a far greater role in legislation than they actually have. A national Cabinet has the power both to set its own policy agenda, and to issue the necessary legislative proposals to carry out that agenda. By virtue of (usually) controlling the necessary seats in the national Parliament, the party that forms the Cabinet also usually has the power to get its proposed legislation passed.

The Commission, by contrast, does not set the policy agenda, and controls neither the Council of Ministers nor the European Parliament, both of which bodies also can and do request the Commission to draft legislation they feel is required.

Essentially, the Commission's role in EU legislation is to act as a central filter, to ensure that legislation is balanced and necessary at the European level, and simultaneously to give it a coherent and uniform legal basis. It is not the captain of the ship, but the pilot.

cordially,
Scofflaw

You should put that in a sticky with other information in how the EU currently works. Good analogy with the Pilot. Good post.

worldrepublic

I saw a figure of 68% somewhere, but it is a blurry and complex area. Ideally, all laws could issue from Brussels anyway.... the various parties could then have an input at the level of implementation.

Iwasfrozen

Thanks for the input guys, the only reason I ask is because of this report:
http://eulaws.freetzi.com/eulaws.pdf
That someone has made out over in P.ie.

limklad

Iwasfrozen wrote: »

Thanks for the input guys, the only reason I ask is because of this report:
http://eulaws.freetzi.com/eulaws.pdf
That someone has made out over in P.ie.

From that report, it seems that 78% of Irish Law in 2008 comes from Brussels. I will need to examine his work to verify it.

limklad

oscarBravo wrote: »

EU regulations form part of the body of EU law, but are not transposed into Irish law.

Yes they (EU regulations) were applied into Irish Law, pre Nice Treaty. For example S.I. No. 24/2001 — European Communities (Specified Risk Material) Regulations, 2001

After NICE Treaty was ratified in 2003, our government was creating S.I. so that future EU Regulations were been made part of Irish Law automatically. For Example S.I. No. 331/2003 SEA FISHERIES (CONSERVATION AND RATIONAL EXPLOITATION OF COD IN THE IRISH SEA) REGULATIONS 2003

S.I. No. 331/2003 wrote:

“Council Regulation” means Council Regulation (EC) No. 2549/2000 of 17 November, 2000(1) as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No. 1456(2) of 16 July 2001 and any future Regulation of the Council made after the making of these Regulations which amends, extends, replaces or consolidates (with or without modification) the Council Regulation (as defined herein);

worldrepublic

molloyjh wrote: »

Thanks for that Scofflaw. I may steal it for future reference if you don't mind......

Thanks Scofflaw, I will print it out... for bedtime reading, and for future reference. You should really be the next President of Europe.:cool:

Iwasfrozen

I'd vote for him.

Scofflaw

limklad wrote: »

From that report, it seems that 78% of Irish Law in 2008 comes from Brussels. I will need to examine his work to verify it.

I read the politics.ie thread I presume that comes from, but I noted that the poster who started it explicitly set out to justify the 80% figure, and wound up at the pleasantly precise figure of 78%. It's a nice case study in working your way back from your conclusion to finding the supporting "facts", but not really much more.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Victor wrote: »

No, AFAIK, certain state agencies (I think its only agencies) have the power to issue SIs, but are fairly limited to their own scope. For example the RPA Luas bye-laws are SIs and the IAA schedule of charges are SIs. This are typically put in place at a board or executive level, with no democratic input until after the fact.

Thanks for that - I presume it's agencies established under some form of enabling act that have the power to issue SI's (orders and regulations) within their remit. This is presumably the relevant part of the RPA's enabling Act (the Transport (Railway Infrastructure) Act, 2001):

5.—Every order (other than an order under section 8 ) or regulation made by the Minister under this Act shall be laid before each House of the Oireachtas as soon as may be after it is made, and if a resolution annulling the order or regulation is passed by either such House within the next 21 days on which that House has sat after the order or regulation is laid before it, the order or regulation shall be annulled accordingly, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

So, even if your order/regulation is made invalid, you've still got 21 days' use out of it.

cordially,
Scofflaw

limklad

Scofflaw wrote: »

I read the politics.ie thread I presume that comes from, but I noted that the poster who started it explicitly set out to justify the 80% figure, and wound up at the pleasantly precise figure of 78%. It's a nice case study in working your way back from your conclusion to finding the supporting "facts", but not really much more.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I started reading that thread too that iwasfrozen was commenting about.
I had problems in downloading that pdf, until i figured out that I had to start here first http://eulaws.freetzi.com/ then click on the pdf link.

2% less than 80% is not bad especially since that poster left out EU decisions. That poster Thoreau had an initial figure of 61.6% and his gut feeling was 65% to 70% range initially. It was Europeasone (same thread) who stated figures of 78% to 80% figures. Thoreau started investigating it to find out if it true or not.

I started picking S.I's (the One he put in the EU bracket that were not obvious in the heading) at ramdom to check for inaccuraties for inclusion into the EU bracket. So far I haven't found any, I leave it until tomorrow to look at further.

Thoreau Final result of 78% blew a hole in Fine Gael very low Figures of 28% excluding regulations, 43% including EU Regulations.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61432552&postcount=3

nesf

limklad wrote: »

I started reading that thread too that iwasfrozen was commenting about.
I had problems in downloading that pdf, until i figured out that I had to start here first http://eulaws.freetzi.com/ then click on the pdf link.

2% less than 80% is not bad especially since that poster left out EU decisions. That poster Thoreau had an initial figure of 61.6% and his gut feeling was 65% to 70% range initially. It was Europeasone (same thread) who stated figures of 78% to 80% figures. Thoreau started investigating it to find out if it true or not.

I started picking S.I's (the One he put in the EU bracket that were not obvious in the heading) at ramdom to check for inaccuraties for inclusion into the EU bracket. So far I haven't found any, I leave it until tomorrow to look at further.

Thoreau Final result of 78% blew a hole in Fine Gael very low Figures of 28% excluding regulations, 43% including EU Regulations.
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=61432552&postcount=3

I think the issue comes down to how exactly you define law and what you include. Also the counting issue rears it's head, does 3 different sets of minor changes to a single set of regulations in a year count as one law or three? You can argue for either option depending on whether you want the number higher or lower. Regardless it's a meaningless stat. What matters isn't the number of laws but their importance. The EU can't legislate in most of the highly important areas here which is something to bear in mind.

limklad

nesf wrote: »

I think the issue comes down to how exactly you define law and what you include. Also the counting issue rears it's head, does 3 different sets of minor changes to a single set of regulations in a year count as one law or three? You can argue for either option depending on whether you want the number higher or lower. Regardless it's a meaningless stat. What matters isn't the number of laws but their importance. The EU can't legislate in most of the highly important areas here which is something to bear in mind.

We Voted in EU Treaties to apply them as part of Irish Law so they do count. No matter how trivial it is.

nesf

limklad wrote: »

We Voted in EU Treaties to apply them as part of Irish Law so they do count. No matter how trivial it is.

You miss my point. All laws are not equal in power or scope. Does it make sense to you to equate one piece of legislation which sets the minimum acceptable standard for the shape and size of bananas to a piece of criminal legislation laying out situations where juryless trials are permitted? That is what such percentage comparisons entail. It's a silly way to compare things.

Scofflaw

nesf wrote: »

I think the issue comes down to how exactly you define law and what you include. Also the counting issue rears it's head, does 3 different sets of minor changes to a single set of regulations in a year count as one law or three? You can argue for either option depending on whether you want the number higher or lower. Regardless it's a meaningless stat. What matters isn't the number of laws but their importance. The EU can't legislate in most of the highly important areas here which is something to bear in mind.

What might well be interesting is a study of the triviality of such regulations. I'm not sure this Regulation, for example, concerns me very much:

Council Regulation (EC) No 1355/2008 of 18 December 2008 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty and collecting definitively the provisional duty imposed on imports of certain prepared or preserved citrus fruits (namely mandarins, etc.) originating in the People’s Republic of China

Or this one:

Council Regulation (EC) No 1354/2008 of 18 December 2008 amending Regulation (EC) No 1628/2004 imposing a definitive countervailing duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India and Regulation (EC) No 1629/2004 imposing a definitive anti-dumping duty on imports of certain graphite electrode systems originating in India

Counting those as the equivalent of an Act of the Oireachtas establishing, for example, the Railway procurement Agency, doesn't seem to me to be a very worthwhile comparison. Most of the regulations seem to me to be very regulatory - keeping the Common Market ticking along.

You'd need some kind of scoring system, I suspect, to make the comparison meaningful - how important is this regulation? How important is that regulation? How important is this Act? Unless of course there's some general principle that applies...

One should perhaps also, as I've said before, and as has been discussed here, consider the volume of things like bye-laws and local law. Unfortunately, there really doesn't seem to be any central record available, although one presumes (perhaps erroneously) that there is such a thing.

On balance, I would say that the 78% being offered here is the absolute highest figure that can be obtained, and it has been obtained by giving equal weight to important Acts and EU regulations of very minimal impact, resulting in a claim that is all but meaningless as regards the EU citizen or business. The Fine Gael figure of 43% strikes me as far more reasonable as a representation of effect, although I suspect it is equally mechanistic.

Would people be up for the tedious task of determining how 'important' the regulations and Acts involved for any specific year are?

cordially,
Scofflaw

nesf

Scofflaw wrote: »

Would people be up for the tedious task of determining how 'important' the regulations and Acts involved for any specific year are?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'd say that would tax even your saintly level of patience.

molloyjh

Scofflaw wrote: »

What might well be interesting is a study of the triviality of such regulations. I'm not sure this Regulation, for example, concerns me very much:



Or this one:



Counting those as the equivalent of an Act of the Oireachtas establishing, for example, the Railway procurement Agency, doesn't seem to me to be a very worthwhile comparison. Most of the regulations seem to me to be very regulatory - keeping the Common Market ticking along.

You'd need some kind of scoring system, I suspect, to make the comparison meaningful - how important is this regulation? How important is that regulation? How important is this Act? Unless of course there's some general principle that applies...

One should perhaps also, as I've said before, and as has been discussed here, consider the volume of things like bye-laws and local law. Unfortunately, there really doesn't seem to be any central record available, although one presumes (perhaps erroneously) that there is such a thing.

On balance, I would say that the 78% being offered here is the absolute highest figure that can be obtained, and it has been obtained by giving equal weight to important Acts and EU regulations of very minimal impact, resulting in a claim that is all but meaningless as regards the EU citizen or business. The Fine Gael figure of 43% strikes me as far more reasonable as a representation of effect, although I suspect it is equally mechanistic.

Would people be up for the tedious task of determining how 'important' the regulations and Acts involved for any specific year are?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The original analysis on this was done on p.ie and I asked the question of relevance there, but there was no appetite to discuss this, let alone reviewing the data.

I did make a start on it, but it is incredibly tedious!

limklad

nesf wrote: »

You miss my point. All laws are not equal in power or scope. Does it make sense to you to equate one piece of legislation which sets the minimum acceptable standard for the shape and size of bananas to a piece of criminal legislation laying out situations where juryless trials are permitted? That is what such percentage comparisons entail. It's a silly way to compare things.

Laws may not be equal in punishment, they are all equal in how they are created. Our EU Obligations when we ratified (by which we voting on) EC/EU treaties in which our Politicians negotiated by making them equal to National Law made them very relevance no matter how trivial people make them out to be. You me and everybody in this country who voted Yes to previous EC/EU treaties made them very relevant to our lives by given them equal standing.

nesf

limklad wrote: »

Laws may not be equal in punishment, they are all equal in how they are created. Our EU Obligations when we ratified (by which we voting on) EC/EU treaties in which our Politicians negotiated by making them equal to National Law made them very relevance no matter how trivial people make them out to be. You me and everybody in this country who voted Yes to previous EC/EU treaties made them very relevant to our lives by given them equal standing.

Of course they have equal standing, otherwise they would be overwritten by any Irish law that dealt with the same area making the process pointless. Are you honestly arguing that we should count trivial laws and far reaching laws with huge impacts as one in the same?

worldrepublic

The main thing is to prioritise certain types of law, for example corporate law, so as to empower corporations and also transnational bodies dealing with matters of law. Corporations are the way forward, and play such a key role within the fabric of society that governmental power, as appropriate, can become bound up with large commercial operations.

K-9

limklad wrote: »

Laws may not be equal in punishment, they are all equal in how they are created. Our EU Obligations when we ratified (by which we voting on) EC/EU treaties in which our Politicians negotiated by making them equal to National Law made them very relevance no matter how trivial people make them out to be. You me and everybody in this country who voted Yes to previous EC/EU treaties made them very relevant to our lives by given them equal standing.

Just to give a different slant on this, read the p.ie thread ages ago so don't know if it was brought up.

Maybe the point here is: why do we only produce 22% of our own laws?

In a perverted sort of way, maybe it's a criticism of our Dail and doesn't say a lot about the EU? If anything maybe this is a good thing about the EU?

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Just to give a different slant on this, read the p.ie thread ages ago so don't know if it was brought up.

Maybe the point here is: why do we only produce 22% of our own laws?

In a perverted sort of way, maybe it's a criticism of our Dail and doesn't say a lot about the EU? If anything maybe this is a good thing about the EU?

We don't produce only 22% of our own laws! Even using the figures given in the PDF (or on that thread) only 16% of our Acts and 32% of our central government SIs are European in origin. Adding in EU Regulations as a mass of "laws" equivalent to those is an appalling comparison of apples and straight bananas.

When someone says "80% of our laws come from Brussels" there is a very clear implication involved - that the course of Irish life is being set by the EU rather than by Ireland, and that is clearly not the case when to reach that figure we must add in EU regulations, the majority of which have virtually no impact whatsoever on the course of Irish life.

The majority of EU regulations are just that - trade regulations. Yes, they have legal effect here, but to describe as "law" and equivalent to an Act of the Oireachtas a trade regulation that sets the tariff on graphite products of Indian origin is ridiculous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

We don't produce only 22% of our own laws! Even using the figures given in the PDF (or on that thread) only 16% of our Acts and 32% of our central government SIs are European in origin. Adding in EU Regulations as a mass of "laws" equivalent to those is an appalling comparison of apples and straight bananas.

When someone says "80% of our laws come from Brussels" there is a very clear implication involved - that the course of Irish life is being set by the EU rather than by Ireland, and that is clearly not the case when to reach that figure we must add in EU regulations, the majority of which have virtually no impact whatsoever on the course of Irish life.

The majority of EU regulations are just that - trade regulations. Yes, they have legal effect here, but to describe as "law" and equivalent to an Act of the Oireachtas a trade regulation that sets the tariff on graphite products of Indian origin is ridiculous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed Scofflaw. Just running with this!

Just going with the point that if IF 22 % of our laws are Irish laws (going on 78% are EU) maybe the point isn't why are 78% EU laws, but why are only 22% supposedly Irish?

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed Scofflaw. Just running with this!

Just going with the point that if IF 22 % of our laws are Irish laws (going on 78% are EU) maybe the point isn't why are 78% EU laws, but why are only 22% supposedly Irish?

In essence, it's because we're talking about two completely different streams of output, with two entirely different aims. On the one hand, we have the laws which govern Ireland and steer the course of the Irish republic. On the other, we have the trade regulations required to keep the common market functioning.

In the first of those streams, Irish law predominates - 70% of the laws that govern Ireland are purely Irish in origin.

In the second of those streams, only EU regulations exist - the common market is not governed by national legislation at all, and 100% of the output is EU.

You cannot meaningfully conflate the two, but it is that conflation that is used to produce the 22% Irish figure. There will never be Irish legislation for the Common Market, so there will always be one of the streams that is 100% EU in origin. Since that stream of output is devoted to the management of a common market area encompassing something like a third of the world's trade, it is unsurprisingly a very large stream.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

But still we protest at how our Govt. doesn't legislate.

Scofflaw

K-9 wrote: »

But still we protest at how our Govt. doesn't legislate.

Do we really want or need our government to put out more legislation? They put out 25 Acts and 607 Statutory Instruments last year - a total of 2953 A4 pages of legislation*. Given the Dáil sits for only 90 days in plenary session, that means that it was supposed to consider 33 pages of legal text per day.

For comparison, the Lisbon Treaty is about 200 pages. Now, given the amount of argument that 200 pages of the Treaty has generated, to the general satisfaction of relatively few people, how much debate ought 150 times that amount be given? Is the Dáil capable of giving it? And would increased legislative output make sense?

cordially,
Scofflaw

*based on a text word count of all SIs and Acts from 2008 stripped of explanatory notes etc, assuming 2750 characters per A4 page.

nesf

K-9 wrote: »

But still we protest at how our Govt. doesn't legislate.

We don't protest at how they don't legislate in general we generally protest when we want to see or change a specific piece of legislation.

K-9

nesf wrote: »

We don't protest at how they don't legislate in general we generally protest when we want to see or change a specific piece of legislation.

Yes, but I'm thinking more of the Dail sitting twiddling its thumbs for a couple of days with no legislation to debate or pass, as happened earlier this year.