A Red Herring

The percentage of laws that stem from Europe is a (rather phoney) passionate debate that often involves statistical deception on both sides, but most particularly among those that favour our membership. One of the classic quotes used by those in favour is that only (circa) 9% of laws come from the EU - this is a favourite of the so-called 'evidence based' blog Left Foot Forward (his emphasis):

6. Successive British governments have refused to say what proportion of domestic laws come from Brussels, but a thorough analysis by the German Federal Justice Ministry showed that 84 per cent of the legislation in that country came from the EU.

This is plainly nonsense, both the claim that the Government “have refused to say” the proportion of laws that come from Brussels, and the figure he quotes. The House of Commons Library states that only 9.1 per cent of UK laws stem from the EU.

The House of Commons Library, however, made no such claim, it instead only referred to the number of Statutory Instruments passed as the result of EU legislation. It did not include things like EU regulations nor primary legislation. A point made by Peter Lilley (via Tim Worstall):

I have heard hon. Members claim that only 10 per cent. of our laws are made in Brussels—a figure that they attribute to a Library paper, but that paper says no such thing. It remarks that the number of statutory instruments laid under the European Communities Act 1972 amounts to about 10 per cent. of all the statutory instruments passed by the House, but points out that EU statutory instruments typically enact a whole directive, which is often the equivalent of an Act of primary legislation, whereas domestic statutory instruments implement regulations. To compare the two is like comparing apples and pears, or rather pumpkins and pears given the disparity in their size. It also ignores the most plentiful fruit that comes from the European orchard—regulations, most of which are never considered by this House and which hon. Members find difficult even to obtain.

The total scale of EU legislation is enormous. Last year, the EU passed 177 directives, which are more or less equivalent to our Acts of Parliament, and 2,033 regulations, which become directly enforceable in this place, not to mention 1,045 decisions.

Arch- Europhile blogger Nosemonkey, to his credit, accepts the 9% deception, but still he uses the percentage argument for EU membership; implicitly arguing that if he can prove that EU law accounts for lower than the eurosceptics claim then ergo our membership is a good thing.

This though raises two obvious questions. If he is right and the EU has such little influence then why does it need to exist, and more importantly why then does it need so much money?

Then of course there's the question that Nosemonkey never answers (to my knowledge) What percentage of EU laws is a good thing? Is 21% better than 22%? Is 34.999% better than 51.9998%. And so on.

It matters not the correct figure - what is clear is that the EU makes at least some, if not most of our laws (the figure largely unknown) and what needs to happen instead is that 100% of laws should be made by a Parliament that is is elected and accountable to the people. The EU is not...9% or otherwise.

100% of laws made by the consent of the people - is that too much to ask?

Percentage Of Laws From The EU?

It's an old argument; how many laws originate from the EU? Daniel Hannan says 85%, UKIP say 75%, Cameron says half, Labour MPs; Tom Harris, Kerry McCarthy, and Caroline Flint often misleadingly use this House of Commons report to cite 9.1%, as does Left Foot Forward (the report appears to be no longer to be available but it was based on statutory instruments only, so the figure is almost certainly higher in total).

However it's an argument that has won the (misguided) europhile blogger Nosemonkey an award for this marvelous post on the percentage issue. Congratulations to him. The truth is, as he argues, that no-one really knows for sure, but he points me to this recent research paper here. I haven't read it yet mainly due to the consumption of copious quantities of beer - trying to negate the effects of the ridiculous manner of my team losing in the last minute today 5-4.

Suffice to say, for me, the percentage issue is, and always has been, a red herring (rather like the europhiles' obsession with so-called myths).

Any figure is merely an artificial arbitrary line. The argument becomes reduced to one where a certain percentage must mean the EU is good whereas another percentage must mean it's bad. Where to draw the line; 3.1415926535%, 9.1%, 10.7%, 20.8%, 50.346792%, 90.999%?

Quite simply it matters not. The EU is more insidious than the odd food regulation or 'myth' - the point is that 100% of our laws should be made by a democratically elected parliament, and 0% made by an fundamentally undemocratic and corrupt institution.

The Red Herring

One of the ongoing debates, for and against, EU membership is regarding the number of laws that originate from the unaccountable unelected law-making factory based in Brussels (mostly).

Those that are more eurosceptic quote higher figures. For example UKIP often cite 75% as the total number of laws (downgraded from an earlier claim of 84% because we're not in the Euro), and other eurosceptic proponents quote similar figures or higher.

The UKIP figure, and subsequent others, was largely based on research by the German Ministry of Justice, which compared the legal acts adopted by the Federal Republic of Germany between 1998 and 2004; with those adopted from the EU in the same period.

This figure, however, has difficulties in that we are comparing one country with a different legal system to another, and that the UK has different opt-outs which Germany does not such as; health, education and defence.

However, even Cameron, in public, admits:

Almost half of all the regulations affecting our businesses come from the EU.

(As it's Cameron, that figure clearly can't be right!)

Today, Open Europe reveals from a report by the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions that (translated from this):

A new report from the Swedish Association of Local Authorities and Regions shows that 60 percent of the decisions taken in an average Swedish local authority, and 50 percent of decisions taken in the country's regions are impacted by the EU. Procurement in the healthcare sector, state aid during sales of land and property, animal welfare inspections and EU subsidy programs are all examples of how the EU affects local and regional decision-making, states the report. The findings in the report are based on decision-making agendas from 30 local authorities, 7 healthcare regions and one region.

So we have different but rather high estimates for the number of EU laws passed. Those (usually) on the left side of the political fence in favour of the EU project quote much lower numbers; for example Left Foot Forward (LFF emphasis):

This is plainly nonsense, both the claim that the Government “have refused to say” the proportion of laws that come from Brussels, and the figure he quotes. The House of Commons Library states that only 9.1 per cent of UK laws stem from the EU.

Tom Harris cites the same statistic (I would quote it, but he has mysteriously removed the blog post since but it was the 9% figure) and so did Caroline Flint on BBC Question Time in May 2009. That would be the former Minister For Europe who admitted she never read the Lisbon Treaty in full (I'll believe her then)

The 9% figure so beloved of the left is not the entire truth either. As I wrote on Left Foot Forwards' website at the time (my emphasis):

That report stated that 9 per cent of all statutory instruments originate in Brussels NOT 9 percent of laws. Obviously Statutory Instruments are not ALL laws, it for example ignores EU Regulations which are directly applicable.

No-one actually knows, reports in different counties give wildly different conclusions. I suspect Hannan’s figure is too high, but your ‘expose’ of 9% is equally misleading.

Besides, the percentage is irrelevant – until an EU Government can be voted in or out by me directly, then the percentage should be 0%.

So the issue is that no-one can quite agree on the actual real figure. Statistics are a politician's best friend because you can prove any argument with them. The Sex Pistols could have named their magnum opus "Never Mind The Statistics" and its meaning would have still remained the same (and saved them a court case).

So wildly differing quotes of statistics and not all of them can be right. But in all honesty the actual figure is irrelevant - a sideshow. Essentially the EU argument goes as follows:

Europhile: "The EU is good for us because only 49.9% of laws are made in Brussels. So we still control our own contry".

Eurosceptic: "The EU is bad for us because over 50.1% of laws are made in Brussels, so it's wrong that the majority of our laws are created elsewhere".

Eurosceptic: "Actually I win the argument even more because I've found an extra EU law down the back of the sofa".

It doesn't matter whatever the figure is, (and everyone agrees that Brussels intrudes on our lives albeit with varying degrees), the facts remain; the percentage will only increase until we leave, and that none of our laws should be made in Brussels.

100% of laws that we have to be abide by should be made by a body subjected to democratic control. In short no law should be imposed on me without an opportunity to remove it via the ballot box.