̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge - legislation

Opinion: Fact Check: are 60% of UK laws really imposed by the EU?

Anonymous — Wed, 27 Apr 2016 14:31:31 +0000

Today it is a tragedy that the European Union – that body long ago established with the high and noble motive of making another war impossible – is itself beginning to stifle democracy, in this country and around Europe. If you include both primary and secondary legislation, the EU now generates 60% of all the laws that pass through Westminster.

Boris Johnson, writing in ̽��ֱ��Sun, April 21

Among the headline-grabbing claims repeatedly made by campaigners for the UK to leave the EU is that a substantial majority of British law is now imposed by Brussels – providing crucial “evidence” to back up their core arguments about a loss of sovereignty and an assault on democracy.

Bluster, bluster. Surrey County Council News, CC BY-SA

This particular claim varies as regards both the alleged figure and its supposed source. UKIP has again and again asserted that Brussels makes 75% of UK law – a figure that appears based on nothing more than some unsubstantiated press remarks from EU Commissioner Viviane Reding. Appearing before the House of Commons Treasury Committee in March, Boris Johnson cited what he called new evidence that put the true number at 60%. This turned out to be a gross misrepresentation of House of Commons Library research dating from 2014, though as can be seen from the quote at the beginning, he is still repeating it.

Perhaps the most important and influential backing for the Leave campaign’s claims comes from a Business for Britain report of March 2015. Touting itself as “definitive”, it decreed that between 1993 and 2014, 64.7% of UK law was EU-influenced, and EU regulations accounted for 59.3% of all UK law.

But closer analysis reveals that this report is utterly flawed and misleading. BfB included in its calculations all EU regulations without distinguishing between legislative regulations and non-legislative ones.

EU legislative regulations are comparable to primary legislation in the UK, but they are relatively few in number. Certain EU non-legislative regulations are comparable to statutory instruments in the UK – such as many of the “delegated regulations” adopted under Article 290 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union – so they too could in principle be included in any attempt to quantify the domestic impact of EU law.

But the great bulk of non-legislative regulations are adopted by member states to implement technical, administrative decisions at the EU level. This includes things such as updating the scientific registers of chemicals and food additives; adjusting specific anti-dumping duties on cheap imports from third countries; confirming the regular continuance of UN sanctions on named individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism; and entering specific foodstuffs in the register of protected designations of origin.

Pears are from Mars … Yulia Koshchiy

It is simply not credible to include such measures in any purported calculation of the volume of UK law which derives from the EU. Or at least: if BfB counted those EU regulations in its sums, it should also include their proper domestic comparators – the vast numbers of UK decisions taken by public officials in a wide range of public bodies across the entire country. This would surely render the EU component of any statistics on the volume of “UK law” virtually negligible. As it stands, this is comparing apples with pears.

To be fair, any competent legal scholar would confirm that attempts to quantify the amount of “UK law”, or the amount of “EU law”, let alone the statistical relationship between the two, could never be anything more than an inaccurate guess guided by contestable research methods.

But there is a broader and more fundamental point here. This is far from the only example of the Leave campaign relying on and then reiterating claims which have proven upon closer inspection to be partially or even wholly false.

Think of Michael Gove’s rosy but entirely spurious vision for the UK’s post-withdrawal trade relationship with the EU. Or watch the fantastical claims of Vote Leave’s Dominic Cummings falling apart under the slightest scrutiny by the Treasury Committee. Those following the referendum debate from a perspective of informed expertise may rightly feel frustrated and dismayed by such blatant skulduggery.

Verdict

̽��ֱ��only way to produce a figure anywhere approaching 60% for the amount of British law that comes from the EU is to follow a seriously flawed methodology. If this sort of work were submitted for academic peer review, it would be rejected at the first hurdle as manifestly unscientific. ̽��ֱ��real worry is that substituting the dissemination of misleading propaganda for honest evidence-based argument, on an issue of fundamental importance for the future of this country, risks further undermining public trust in our political institutions as well as inflicting serious damage upon the quality of our national democracy.

Review

Kenneth Armstrong, Professor of European Law, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

Fans of ̽��ֱ��Big Bang Theory will be familiar with Sheldon Cooper’s webcast Fun with Flags. ̽��ֱ��EU referendum campaign has brought us Fun with Fractions with Boris Johnson suggesting that the percentage of UK law that emanates from the EU is “60%”.

̽��ֱ��60% figure derives from a methodology reported by the House of Commons Research Library, and as the report’s author admits “it is impossible to achieve an accurate measure”. ̽��ֱ��methodology includes EU “regulations” which can have immediate effect in UK law without being implemented by Westminster, the idea being that a methodology which only focused on directives and decisions that require formal adoption into national rules would underestimate EU influence. But as our commentator notes, this also risks including a large number of technical regulations and amendments.

As Sheldon would claim, methodology matters. ̽��ֱ��mere fact that methodologies are contestable does not mean that any given one is wrong, unless it is wrong in terms of the question asked. Is it a narrow question of how much EU law is implemented or are we evaluating broader EU influence? Does volume equate with significance? And how do we factor in change over time? Does anyone really care? Distractions with fractions.

Michael Dougan, Professor of European Law and Jean Monnet Chair in EU Law, ̽��ֱ�� of Liverpool

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Kenneth Armstrong (Centre for European Legal Studies) and Michael Dougan ( ̽��ֱ�� of Liverpool) discuss the volume of UK law which derives from the EU.

Leon Yaakov

European Union Quarter in Brussels

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License. Images, including our videos, are Copyright © ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge and licensors/contributors as identified. All rights reserved. We make our image and video content available in a number of ways – as here, on our main website under its Terms and conditions, and on a range of channels including social media that permit your use and sharing of our content under their respective Terms.

For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution

Opinion: Why new anti-lobbying rules leave small charities out in the cold

Anonymous — Tue, 16 Feb 2016 16:02:43 +0000

Charities will no longer be able to use public money for lobbying activities according to new rules. ̽��ֱ��anti-advocacy clause in government contracts announced by the Cabinet Office stated that “taxpayers’ money must be spent on improving people’s lives and spreading opportunities, not wasted on the farce of government lobbying government”, adding that it was “a zero sum game if Peter is robbed to pay Paul”.

There are structures for local communication between the public and voluntary sectors, such as Local Strategic Partnerships, but these do not connect charities with the national policymakers that regulate their work. This is particularly true for small and medium-sized charities who already lack channels of communication, despite the value of their experience working closely with service users. This is a potentially more profound political problem resulting from the clause.

So if the government is serious about not stifling debate, but rather to ensure money is spent on services, then it should demonstrate this through creating other venues for critiquing policy and transmitting knowledge gained from frontline service delivery.

Feedback from the frontline

̽��ֱ��new clause has been criticised by umbrella charities such as the National Council for Voluntary Organisations (NCVO) and others, although charities such as Shelter, cited in the government announcement as an example of using private funds for lobbying, have been (officially) quiet. Those who have criticised the government’s regulation have expressed their concern that knowledge from frontline service delivery, which should inform better decision-making in policy, will go unused.

For these critics, the “farce” is a political construction that in practice undermines the aim of government funding to address social problems. John Tizard, an adviser and commentator on public policy, wrote that his “experience suggests that mature and confident politicians welcome informed debate and campaigns, even when they disagree with them”.

A joint letter from the Association of Chief Executives of Voluntary Organisations and NCVO also said the clause “may actually cost the taxpayer more money through limiting the range of insight that policy makers can draw upon”.

Deep cuts

Yet it’s the issue for smaller charities that cuts deepest. Both the local charities and government-funded consortia that bring together community-based associations working in the same area (such as public health), and the community activists the government now depends on to fill the gaps created by cuts, risk becoming more distant than ever from the political elites instigating those cuts. These groups operate job clubs, advice networks, food banks, lunch clubs, and other activities that are often replacing or compensating for reduced local public services.

Large charities such as Shelter, with diverse sources of funding, will continue to pressure the government over poverty-related issues like housing and likewise receive recognition as a representative of the sector. But smaller charities or government-funded local consortia, which already lack a voice because of their size and diversity, may find themselves even more financially and politically marginalised in a climate that will discourage open, public discussion.

This marginalisation may affect both local charities and policymakers in three specific ways:

• It will exacerbate the mounting frustration and workload among many local charities facing daily the personal consequences of policies like sanctions, the bedroom tax, and cuts to public services, but unable to leverage this responsibility for greater access to policymakers.

• Likewise, there will be an increasingly visible tension between local charities striving to be “safe spaces”, where service users can trust that someone will listen and try to help, and the policies that affect their work. Policies like the anti-advocacy clause implicitly convey a lack of trust in the intentions of charities and demonstrate the unwillingness of policymakers to listen to what charity staff have to say.

• Community-based associations that serve particular ethnic and religious groups may have little or no capacity to express the impact their projects have on integration, undermining policies aimed at inclusion.

Smaller charities (and bigger ones too) must be able to transmit knowledge and findings from the frontline to those making policy. If the government keeps the anti-advocacy clause, then it must provide alternative ways for charities to voice concerns – or share ideas. These forums should include charities dependent on government funding or which lack the resources to develop a policy position so that they have the opportunity to have genuine influence over policymaking. They should include a range of charities from diverse local communities, not just the large national charities that can afford to lobby using private funds, in order to gain the broadest understanding of the social impact of current policies and the policy reforms needed to improve this impact.

Shana Cohen, Senior Research Associate, ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge

This article was originally published on ̽��ֱ��Conversation. Read the original article.

̽��ֱ��opinions expressed in this article are those of the individual author(s) and do not represent the views of the ̽��ֱ�� of Cambridge.

Shana Cohen (Woolf Institute) discusses the anti-advocacy clause in government contracts that means charities will no longer be able to use public money for lobbying activities.

ccbarr

Volunteer

̽��ֱ��text in this work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. For image use please see separate credits above.

Yes

Licence type:

Attribution-ShareAlike