EU – It really is getting sillier by the day
The Telegraph reported yesterday that EU is to drop the idiotic “olive oil jug ban” after public outcry. In case you missed the story, Brussels bureaucrats had decided that it was in the interests of the consumer to ban the use of jugs, cruets or bowls to serve olive oil in restaurants. It was justified as necessary because of alleged “frequent” fraud in restaurants and we, the public, required help for our own good. Never mind that such legislation could well have seen the end to many small artisan olive oil producers who rely on the restaurant trade for their livelihood and that no one (other than industrial olive producers) wanted it.
As it turns out the EU had no “evidence” of malpractice – just anecdotes. Eventually criticism from Holland and Germany led by Jose Manuel Barroso, the EU commission president, (and whose father was a small artisan olive oil producer), managed to halt the legislation.
Two questions. How on earth did this insane proposition ever get as far as it did? And where was the UK on all of this? We abstained from the vote. Questions must surely be asked.
Liberal Democrats have defended the European Union for as long as this blog has been in existence (and some). But such stories appear all to regularly, and the excesses of Brussels seem to be growing rather than diminishing. No wonder the public’s appetite for the EU is at an all time low.
Read more on the issue here: “It’s Silly, Costly, And Evidence Free – But Let’s Make It Law Anyway”
May 24th, 2013 at 12:40 pm
It was a decision made by the unelected, unaccountable commission. It seems the only people that have access to influence the commission are lobbyists.
May 24th, 2013 at 12:52 pm
This was a bad decision, reversed after inevitable bad publicity. It is no more an indictment of the EU than, say, Chris Grayling’s legal aid proposals are evidence that we should abolish the UK. So this is nothing to do with defending the European Union: support for an institution does not imply uncritical support for everything it decides.
The main problem with the UK in particular is the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the votes of its ministers in Council. If this had been the subject of parliamentary discussion, then maybe the ministerial
May 24th, 2013 at 12:52 pm
This was a bad decision, reversed after inevitable bad publicity. It is no more an indictment of the EU than, say, Chris Grayling’s legal aid proposals are evidence that we should abolish the UK. So this is nothing to do with defending the European Union: support for an institution does not imply uncritical support for everything it decides.
The main problem with the UK in particular is the lack of parliamentary scrutiny of the votes of its ministers in Council. If this had been the subject of parliamentary discussion earlier, then maybe the ministerial representative would have been forced to vote differently.
May 24th, 2013 at 12:56 pm
@Sue: It was the Council, not the Commission, that made the decision. UK ministers are not accountable for their actions in Council, but they should be.
May 24th, 2013 at 2:30 pm
There is an argument in favour of the ban. Do you like dipping your bread in olive oil that’s already had the fingers of an unspecified number of people in it, that’s of unspecified again and that may not be olive oil at all?
May 24th, 2013 at 11:07 pm
But no-one dips their bread or fingers into bottles.
May 25th, 2013 at 10:09 pm
It is because of an EU concept called comitology.
“Comitology is death by a thousand directives, but with unimaginable levels of additional clauses which are legal requirements. The European Commissioners have taken under their wing the EU’s civil service with the express aim of undermining parliament and national governments. Whether it’s what we eat, what we drink, what medicine we take, or how we travel, there’s a pen pusher drafting, modifying and enhancing EU law accordingly.”
“The Commission is assisted by representatives of the Member States through committees, in accordance with the “comitology” procedure”, which basically means that the Commission has accumulated additional prerogatives through the Lisbon Treaty. It has largely gone unnoticed. The document goes on to say:
“The Treaty of Lisbon provides that the relationship between the Commission and its committees is henceforth organised on the basis of a regulation adopted by the European Parliament under the ordinary legislative procedure. Until such a regulation is adopted, the Council “Comitology Decision” adopted in 2006 is to apply.”
“The Commission – even a single civil servant when they are not reined in by their hierarchy – can impose a decision unless it is countered by the Council of Ministers acting unanimously [Guegen’s emphasis] as 27 member states!”
http://www.thecommentator.com/article/2745/eu_power_grab_fatally_undermines_democracy