Alcohol: I Forgot To Remember to Forget

This last week from the BBC:

The new scheme [pretending - because it is against EU law - that there will be minimum pricing], which will be in force before the World Cup, requires retailers to use a complicated formula based on alcohol duty and VAT to calculate a floor price.

Those readers of mine whose memory has not been obliterated by the copious consumption of beer (other beverages are available) will of course remember this from January of 2011 - 3 years ago:

Under plans to be unveiled by the Home Office today retailers will be banned from selling drinks for less than the value of duty and VAT owed on them.

It's enough to turn you to drink...

Dare Not Speak Its Name

If you look at the above picture, published in the Daily Mail, you'll spot a very big clue, one that even the government acknowledges, as per this (specifically page 12):

(d) information specific to the licence issued, numbered as follows:

4. (a) date of issue of the licence;

(b) date of expiry of the licence or a dash if the licence is valid indefinitely under the provision of Article 7(2)

6. photograph of the holder;

Yet amid the outrage not once does the Daily Mail even mention it:

More than two million motorists are unwittingly getting behind the wheel with an out-of-date driving licence that could land them with a fine of up to £1,000, a survey reveals today.

The problem stems from drivers wrongly believing that the photo-identity card they carry is for life. In fact, it must be renewed every ten years.

This, say insurance experts, is causing confusion and could  also render drivers’ insurance policies invalid.

Apparently the Daily Mail is a Eurosceptic paper.

118 707

My blog title refers to BT's 'no frills' directory inquiries service, and I'll come onto the significance of this later in the post.

Ten years ago, 192 (and 153 for international) was the only, and easy to remember, telephone number used to provide a directory inquiries service. Originally free, it did eventually cost 40p a call, yet it provided a simple, quick and efficient service - manned by staff who largely were familiar with the quirks of the many idiosyncratic place names in this country born out of our rich history and heritage.

In 2003, however, that was all to change. 192 was abolished on 24 August 2003 and the service opened up to competition. According to Ofcom at the time the reason was (in answer to question 17):

This is why we have decided to create better value and choice for you by introducing the new range of 6-digit numbers for DQ services, each starting with 118. All DQ service providers can compete on equal terms.

Ah the 'better service and choice' argument, but the real clue for the change is given further on in the answer:

Several other countries have already successfully introduced similar changes to their DQ markets.

We have chosen numbers starting with 118 because other countries in Europe will increasingly be using these numbers for their DQ services. 

What is left unsaid, and was at the time, the reason for the change was EU Directive 2002/77/EC, specifically article 5:

Member States shall ensure that all exclusive and/or special rights with regard to the establishment and provision of directory services on their territory, including both the publication of directories and directory enquiry services, are abolished.

As a result of complying with EU law, what then followed resembled a farce in the UK by Ofcom - the governing body - who quite frankly didn't have a clue. Naturally prices went up and were on the whole confusing, standards plummeted and most of the original copious services faded away as inevitably BT, and obviously 118 118, cornered the market. Not only that, but in order to comply, a coach and horses had to be driven through previous legislation which resulted in the Communications Act 2003.

Ofcom have clear laid out categories within their telephone numbering plan. For example; Freephone (0800), Local rate (0845), National rate (0870) and Premium rate (090). The problem is that national rate has an upper limit of 10p per minute. This meant that for directory inquiries companies they could not make work a service that would be cost effective - it would be an unworkable business model. As a consequence it was obvious in 2002 that 118 numbers would have to fall into the Premium rate category, allowing companies to charge a phone call rate that recoups their costs at the very least.

So Ofcom, eager to comply with EU law, hit on another problem, by forcing 118 numbers to come under the Premium rate category meant being part of the one area of telephone services that is heavily regulated (a reason why many chatline services advertised in national papers are national 0870 numbers because the rules are far more relaxed).

Applying for a Premium rate number in 2002 meant having a 75 page booklet (ICSTIS 10th edition - now known as PhonepayPlus) of 'do's and don'ts', as well as legal responsibilities, thrown at you. These conditions at the time for most premium rate numbers included:

• Not allowed to be put on hold
  
  
• A maximum cost for the phone call was set - for example 6.2 (a) (Pay for Product Services) [product must not cost] more than £20.00 or (d) terminate by forced release.


• Premium rate callers must be over 18, for example 5.6.2 (a) Service providers must ensure that operators use reasonable endeavors to prevent persons under 18 years of age from taking part...


• Children's services had a category of its own and under 6.1.2 (b) the service should only be used with the agreement of the person responsible for paying the telephone bill...or as another example, 6.1.4 (a) Children's services must cost no more than £3.00.


• There's a maximum price per minute, a maximum which varied service to service - but was set ultimately at £1.50 per minute.
  
  
• Advising you at the beginning of the call how long the call was likely to last and how much it ws to cost for example 6.6.2 (b) include an introductory message, giving the likely total cost of the call...

The rules were, and are endless, but in order to deregulate the directory inquires service they were circumnavigated by Section 120 of Communications Act 2003, which gave Ofcom the power to regulate the Premium rate industry but crucially it did not apply to all Premium rate services (my emphasis) thus letting 118 numbers off the hook:

120  Conditions regulating premium rate services(1)OFCOM shall have the power, for the purpose of regulating the provision, content, promotion and marketing of premium rate services, to set conditions under this section that bind the persons to whom they are applied.

(2)Conditions under this section may be applied either-

(a)generally to every person who provides a premium rate service;

 Ofcom could therefore ride roughshod over existing regulation:

In a classic example of understatement, it cited the example of one man who was charged £350 for a 118 call and connection from a landline in 2009: "Consumer has said that he is upset with the lack of information given by directory enquiries as they didn't advise him of what the connection costs would be and the charge to call them."

Thus 118 numbers were given the freedom to put people on hold - by necessity of volume of calls at any given moment - and charged more the fixed rate per minute, plus no upper limit because that would mean cutting off a phone call with your gran (for example) after exceeding the limit when being put through.

There was also another problem which affected businesses, which was rarely reported. The ability of 118 services to put callers through to a number of their choice, which not only incurred a significant cost but more importantly it posed a telephony security risk.

At the time of the change, one part of my previous job was being a PBX installer and programmer. For those unfamiliar, a PBX is a private branch exchange - a telephone exchange installed in big companies or hotels -one that allows many extensions numbers to be used in one building as an example. (Technology has now moved on and with VOIP (Voice over IP) - the technology behind Skype - the traditional PBX has largely been made redundant, but I digress).

Typically to save businesses money, premium rate and national rate numbers would be barred on such a system. Yet by dialing 118, it allowed company employees to bypass barred numbers by being put through via a 118 service. They could ring up and ask for the number or service in question, costing the company a lot of money in the process.

The reason I mention this is because part of my job involved conducting a cost/benefit analysis of the new 118 services - initially due the incompetence of Ofcom a hugely frustrating process. Ultimately though this actually proved to be dead easy because very few 118 numbers at the time provided the PBX security that was required - i.e a bog standard service. I lost count of the number of 18 year old Account Managers (who I knew I wouldn't see in 6 months time) trying to sell me their product's services  - bells and whistles - that I didn't want and were anyway against company policy.

And that leads me onto 118707 - the title of my blog post. Though the number is not well advertised, 118707 is the BT service designed for businesses mainly for the reasons listed above. In short it's the old 192 service in disguise. Dialing it is like going back in time.

But such is progress courtesy of the European Union...

Made From Norwegian Wood

As Richard North notes, you can tell that the 'Norway' proposal has put the wind up the Europhiles made evident by the amount of attention that they're paying to it, imbue naturally with BBC bias by omission. By eliminating the apocalyptic economic warnings of leaving the single market that will inevitably be rolled out en masse, Norway leaves only the (untrue) 'fax democracy' argument against leaving the EU. Negate that and they are left with nothing.

Norway, like Lichtenstein and Iceland are members of the EEA and EFTA (with Switzerland being a member of EFTA only). They participate fully in the committees that assist the EU Commission in administering or developing framework programmes and specific programmes:

All in all, Norwegian officials take part in just over 200 committees under the European Commission. The presence of Norwegian experts provides an opportunity to exert influence through direct participation at a time when national points of view are usually still flexible and before positions have become firmly established.

This comes under Articles 99 and 100 of the 1994 Agreement of European Economic Area. Artcle 99 (page 32) states (my emphasis):

1. As soon as new legislation is being drawn up by the EC Commission in a field which is governed by this Agreement, the EC Commission shall informally seek advice from experts of the EFTA States in the same way as it seeks advice from experts of the EC Member States for the elaboration of its proposals.

2. When transmitting its proposal to the Council of the European Communities, the EC Commission shall transmit copies thereof to the EFTA States.
At the request of one of the Contracting Parties, a preliminary exchange of views takes place in the EEA Joint Committee.

3. During the phase preceding the decision of the Council of the European Communities, in a continuous information and consultation process, the Contracting Parties consult each other again in the EEA Joint Committee at the significant moments at the request of one of them.

4. The Contracting Parties shall cooperate in good faith during the information and consultation phase with a view to facilitating, at the end of the process, the decision-taking in the EEA Joint Committee.

And Article 100 says:

...when drawing up draft measures the EC Commission shall refer to experts of the EFTA States on the same basis as it refers to experts of the EC Member States.

Clearly then Norway has the opportunity to have input into the formation of single market rules via the EEA Joint Committee and the EEA Council. Then ultimately Norway, and other members of EEA, has the insurance of a veto as a longstop. It is a right that Norway has already deployed when, in 2011, it vetoed the EU's 3rd Postal Directive (2008/6/EC), as this quarterly report from Posten Norge (Norway's Postal Service) writes:

The postal market in Europe was liberalised with effect from 01.01.2011 in accordance with the EUs third Postal Directive. However, a decision made at the Labour Party National Conference makes it clear that the Norwegian government does not wish to implement the EU's Third Postal Directive. The consequences of a possible veto are uncertain, but the Board of Directors considers the risk of the EU imposing sanctions on Norway Post's activities outside Norway as low.

Contrast this with the UK, who eagerly implemented the relevant EU Directive into the Postal Services Act 2011:

The Bill implements provisions of Directive 2008/6/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 February 2008 amending Directive 97/67/EC with regard to the full accomplishment of the internal market of Community postal services.

This Directive amends Directive 97/67/EC which was previously amended by
Directive 2002/39/EC. References are to the consolidated version of the Directive.

The same EU Postal Directives that have done enormous damage to our Royal Mail service.

And not only has Norway used the veto but it also uses the right as a threat to enhance its negotiating position on a number of occasions. For example in 2011 the Norwegian government considered using its veto against a new EU Directive, then being discussed by the EU Parliament attempting to set a limit to the European banks deposit insurance guarantee. In an interview with the Norwegian newspaper “Nationen,” Norwegian minister of finance, Sigbjørn Johnsen, refuse to accept the upcoming regulations from Brussels (via Google translate):

"[The EU] understand well the arguments we make, and I feel that the arguments go in, but time will tell if we get through", says Johnsen "But yes, the veto is even considered. But our main line is getting through."

However one shouldn't get carried away. The Norway solution is anything but a permanent solution for us - and most certainly it is not perfect. In many ways Norwegians suffer from the same problems as us, ruled by homegrown Europhile politicians, stitch-ups in their Parliament as a result - which make, despite the power of the veto - Norway one of the most obedient countries towards the EU and the EEA:

Norwegian lawmakers and bureaucrats obediently follow directives issued by the European Union (EU), now probably on controversial data storage rules as well, even though Norway isn’t an EU member. The latest example of obedience brought together arch-rivals Labour and the Conservatives, because of their leaders’ desires to avoid an EU veto.

Despite Norwegian public's scepticism about the EU, made clear in two referendum rejections of membership, Norway has incorporated approximately three-quarters of all EU legislative acts into Norwegian legislation as part of the EEA - according to this massive 900 page report commissioned in 2010 by the Norwegian Government as a comprehensive review of Norway’s agreements with the EU. 

Thus the willingness of Norway's parliament to bend to the will of the EU is not because of a 'democratic deficit' as a consequence of Norway being a member of the EEA, as the introductory text claims (page 7):

The most problematic aspect of Norway’s form of association with the EU is the fact that Norway is in practice bound to adopt EU policies and rules on a broad range of issues without being a member and without voting rights. This raises democratic problems.

...instead the deficit lies between Norway's parliament and its own people. Norway has more power over EU regulations in relation to the single market than ourselves, but it chooses by and large not to utilise it. Now doesn't that sound familiar? So ultimately exiting the EU in whatever format we choose still requires a massive overhaul of democracy at home in relation to how we're governed.

One Small Problem...

At the bottom of this article by the Daily Mail, about so-called 'Zombie Britain' are these words of wisdom from our beloved Prime Minister on helping to boost our flagging economy:

Competition could be boosted by breaking up nationalised banks and giving customers a single transferable account number, David Cameron suggested yesterday.

The Prime Minister signalled that he favoured the idea of making it easier to switch between banks.

He added that ministers would consider the need to increase choice on the High Street as they sought to return RBS and Lloyds to the private sector.

It echoes a comment made by another Tory MP Andrea Leadsom, a Treasury Select Committee member back in September this year:

...Andrea Leadsom has called for regulators to force banks to allow customers to keep their account number if they switch to a new bank...[she] told the Mail on Sunday that portability would make it easier to switch accounts and would enhance competition. She said it "might take a regulatory push to make it happen".

Her stand follows a poll released by Which? last week, in which 59 per cent said that they would be more likely to move banks if they could take their account number with them.

One small problem.

Here's an EU Commission staff working document from 2005 (Annex to the proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Payment Services in the Internal Market - Impact assessment {COM(2005) 603 final). It says:

It was decided that legal requirements for the “ portability of bank account numbers ” should not be taken up.

The reason being...? (my emphasis)

The benefit of the introduction of a mandatory rule ensuring the portability of bank account numbers is to facilitate mobility of customers. Currently the cost for changing from one bank to another is very high. Bank account portability is expected to facilitate competition. However, studies carried out in some Member States (UK, NL) regarding this question of portability have shown that the recently introduced EU-wide IBAN-BIC[94] numbering system is not compatible with the portability of account numbers without incurring in disproportionate costs and provoking problems for efficient straight through processing.

The Commission believes that after the considerable investments in the development of the IBAN-BIC numbering systems, time is needed for this system to prove its effectiveness. It would not be appropriate at this stage to impose a modification of the system. Nevertheless, the IBAN-BIC system appears to be a very complicated system and may need to be simplified in the long run. Therefore the Commission advises the banking industry to launch studies in order to create, in the long run, a more simplified numbering system for payments in the Internal Market.

Introducing portable account numbers would mean current International Bank Account Number (IBAN) and BIC standards – which have been adopted by the European Committee for Banking Standards as the standards for the Single Euro Payments Area (SEPA) formats - would have to be abolished and replaced.

In other words it ain't going to happen anytime soon.

Now There's A Surprise

The youngest female drivers face significant increases in their insurance costs from this month, according to new figures.

Higher insurance costs had been predicted, as a result of the ban on different prices for men and women which starts on 21 December.

A European court ruling last year found that gender discrimination in insurance was against the law.

Insurance brokers are reporting rises of 40% or more in some quotes.

This is for cover for motorists starting this December, compared with quotes for policies starting in November. In some cases they can be even higher.

The European ruling means that women will also pay more for life assurance, while men will receive lower annuities - a pension income for the rest of their lives.

The consequences of such a ruling are not a surprise, just more confirmation that our lives are affected by unaccountable institutions.

Interestingly the BBC uses the term; "A European court". The European Court in question is the European Court of Justice which is part of the...EU. But not once is that mentioned in the piece...

Legal Challenges?

Today I attended, along with many other like minded people, a meeting in Leamington Spa, seeking and fulfilling the ratification of the six demands of the Harrogate Agenda.

I will post tomorrow my thoughts in detail on the meeting, in the meantime Autonomous Mind has a great post here on his thoughts as part of a live blog.

As an aside this in a small way is the problem we face, from the Spectator:

I quote in full (my emphasis):

On Monday, the government is set to announce its alcohol strategy. It is expected that this will call for a minimum unit price of 40p. As Graham Wilson reports in The Sun, this idea is a personal favourite of the Prime Minister but opposed by several influential members of the Cabinet.

These ministers worry that it’ll be seen as the rich man taking away the poor man’s pleasure. Given the media reaction to the pasty tax and the caravan tax, this is a legitimate concern. They also fear that a successful legal challenge to it, which is a distinct possibility, would do further damage to the government’s reputation for competence.

Cameron himself is attracted to the idea because he thinks it’ll help cut down on binge drinking and by stopping supermarkets from doing cheap offers will help pubs compete. But the problem is it is a blunt instrument. It’ll hit responsible drinkers as hard as irresponsible ones.

A successful legal challenge? Now why would that be a problem? Where would the origins of that legality lie? And why doesn't the Spectator mention it? It's a subject I as a simple lowly blogger have highlighted why on many occasions. Legal difficulties was what it was called nearly 2 years ago.

The Spectator is part of the problem, a part of the establishment and most certainly not on the side of the people. It is not fit for purpose.

Circus Elephant In The Room

Banning circus animals is against EU law.

Discussing the subject in Parliament was and is a waste of time - impotency of our government laid bare.

So Paul Waugh, who reports today's Parliament's proceedings without mentioning that fact, is either lying or is stupid.

hattip: Witterings from Witney

Hitting The Buffers

In one of those moments that makes your jaw drop (not) Scotland has had to abandon its flagship health measures of minimum pricing on alcohol. Despite the continuous hyperbole from the media and MPs on the benefits of such a scheme, the fact it's against EU law has largely gone unreported except by a few lowly bloggers.

But against EU law it most certainly is:

PLANS to introduce minimum pricing on alcohol in Scotland have been postponed indefinitely by ministers as a result of a growing legal challenge to the controversial move.

The Scottish Government has confirmed it will not be 
introducing the new law until legal action brought against it by drinks producers has been settled.

The decision means that the proposal, which was due to come into force in the spring of next year, has now been put on hold, with no date now available on when it could come in. Similar legal action taken by tobacco firms against a ban on promotional displays of cigarettes is still ongoing, and has now held up new laws by nearly two years already.

The SNP’s flagship health policy was already hitting difficulties after the European Commission ruled last month that it was opposed to it on the grounds it broke free trade laws. SNP ministers have until the end of the year to try and make their case to EC chiefs and avoid a potentially-damaging legal battle at the European Court of Justice.

Ironically this comes after a recent deal to allow Scotland to have a referendum on independence from the UK. Quite how Alex Salmond believes Scotland will be independent outside the UK whilst remaining members of the EU, when one of its flagship policies has been scuppered by laws made undemocratically elsewhere, is beyond me.

But then at least Scotland is allowed a straight in/out referendum; the rest of us get a fudge of a referendum on the EU which includes the fantasy of renegotiation. The contempt for us is nauseating. Our 'leaders' have hit the buffers.

In A Pickle

In further evidence that Cameron, (and the Telegraph) would rather get themselves in an (Eric) Pickle than admit who really runs our country is the farce over the Beecroft report on employment reform. This is (another) EU occupied field which means such reforms were always nonsense as Richard North demonstrates:

In its usual self-important way, the Failygraph ponderously announces that "a document leaked to The Daily Telegraph shows that three proposals in the controversial Beecroft report were removed after being submitted to No10 before it was sent to the Business Department". 

Well, in this exclusive report we can reveal that the europa.eu website has not leaked to EUReferendum.com the contents of Council Directive 2010/18/EU (above). Despite this, we can now reveal from looking at the website that it was approved in principle by the Council on 2 December 2009 (top) - Mr Brown's administration, I believe.

We can also exclusively reveal that we have looked at lots and lots of websites and, from documents seen by EUReferendum.com on those websites, we can reveal that employment law is an EU competence. Furthermore, we can reveal that, with this directive, parental leave (which includes provisions for flexible working) becomes an occupied field. 

Richard's sarcasm on the oxymoron that are the words 'Telegraph' and 'learned' in the same sentence is wonderful. Revealing it is too that the both Cameron and the Telegraph would rather look ridiculous and take the hit than admit the truth.

Lamprey Pie

The Daily Mail Wails:

For the people of Gloucester, it wouldn't be a Jubilee year without a lamprey pie.

In a custom stretching back for centuries, the city marks every one of these royal milestones - as well as Coronations - by sending the monarch a traditional dish made with an eel-like fish native to local rivers.

But this time around the uniquely British recipe will have to be prepared with lampreys from abroad, due to a shortage of the species in Gloucester waters.

So instead we have to import them from Canada:

The Canadian sea lamprey are set to arrive in Britain on May 4, when Dr Marc Gaden of the Great Lakes Fishery Commission will present them to Gloucester City Council.

It may seem an enormous effort to spare one pie's worth of Severn lamprey, but Steve Axford, the Environment Agency's principal fisheries scientist, said it was important 'to protect them and conserve stocks'.

He told the Daily Telegraph the Severn Estuary is home to all three species of lamprey and has been designated as a conservation area.

'We have a duty to protect them, and safeguard rivers,' he said.

Well of course we have a duty to protect them...they have a conservation status as per Annexes II and V of the EU Habitats Directive. Funnily enough after 40 years of EU membership the Mail still can't bring itself to mention details like this.

Plain To See

One of the BBCs favourite subjects was back in the frame today as it got terribly excited about the Government's latest anti-smoking measures:

The government is considering plans to strip all branding from cigarette packs sold in England in a bid to make smoking appear less attractive. Health Secretary Andrew Lansley told the BBC he hoped the ban would prevent people from taking up smoking and also help those trying to give up.

The government is to launch its consultation on the issue on Monday.

And there's a whiff of deja vu, this from 2010:

Cigarette packets should have plain packaging to make smoking less attractive, ministers have suggested.

Health Secretary Andrew Lansley said "glitzy designs on packets" attracted children to smoking and it made sense to look at "less attractive packaging".

I'm not sure what good plain packaging will achieve as there's a ban on displaying them in shops anyway. But of course logic doesn't come into it. No, not when the manufacture. presentation and sale of tobacco products comes under the authority of the European Union, notably Directive 2001/37/EC.

So naturally it comes as no surprise that in 2010 we had this:

An EU consultation document on revising the 2001/37/EC Directive. And Option 3 (page 7) says:

Option 3 - Introduce generic or plain packaging

Plain or generic packaging would standardise the appearance of tobacco packaging. Manufacturers would only be allowed to print brand and product names, the quantity of the product, health warnings and other mandatory information such as security markings.

The package itself would be plain coloured (such as white, grey or plain cardboard). The size and shape of the package could also be regulated.

The European Commission is currently deliberating the responses to the consultation and is due to make recommendations later this year.

Of course that the EU is considering such proposals and the UK have launched a consultation is entirely a coincidence. When the EU eventually gets round to making a decision, then by keep announcing proposals we can pretend it was our idea all along, aided and abetted by the great and the good in our media.

Deliberately Misleading?

Ian Cowie, the head of personal finance in the Daily Telegraph, rightly picks up on the disgraceful jump in the numbers of older people dying of cold, unable as they are to afford to heat their homes. His solution, rather than tackle the real issues, is to propose scrapping VAT on household fuel:

Warm words from politicians are cold comfort and no substitute for action. Bringing the tax on household fuel into line with zero-rated VAT on water and food makes sense - they are all necessities of life – and could bring immediate help to thousands of people suffering unnecessarily this winter.

One small problem however - Brussels.

Domestic heating used to have zero VAT until 1993. The then Major Government under pressure from the EU began the process of harmonising VAT in accordance with the 6th VAT Directive. This meant that, in an ever increasingly 'isolated' Britain, the Tories attempted to impose VAT on previously exempt goods such as; food, clothes and newspapers. Politically sensitive as this obviously was, the Tories began tentatively with domestic heating, the upshot being that we gave up that exemption (with a 5% duty) and so to get it back now requires the permission of Brussels - permission that almost certainly won't be forthcoming.

Despite being the head of personal finance, Mr Cowie doesn't mention any of this. Now this can only be because of one or two reasons: he doesn't know or he chose not to mention it. It's hard to believe he doesn't know. VAT is not some obscure EU Directive but a real tangible part of our membership - it's an EU tax introduced in 1973 as a consequence of joining the then EEC. To plead ignorance, particularly in his position on the Telegraph, must surely call into very serious question his abilities as a journalist.

So the only other option is that he is aware. Which then means he has written an article that he knows cannot happen but disguises this by hiding important information from his readers. An article in short that is a lie and a deceit.

Either way what he has written is pointless waste of time and illustrates once again the inability of our MSM to acknowledge where the real government lies. I do wish they would grow up.

'Weirisome'

The Environment Agency currently has a project to replace all five of the remaining old paddle and rymer weirs on the River Thames, three of which are Grade II listed structures. The EA justifies this by saying:

As owners and operators of the weirs on the River Thames, we are responsible for keeping them in good working order and safe for our staff to operate and maintain. We regularly carry out engineering surveys to identify areas on each weir that may need repair or replacement. 

We are replacing the paddle and rymer weirs because they can cause inherent long-term health problems. They can also have operational issues, be time consuming and potentially dangerous to operate. 

The new weirs will be operated more rapidly, safely and effectively. They will preserve the existing biodiversity and appearance of the river.

The proposed work has been controversial and very unpopular - much criticism levelled at the expense of replacing weirs that have worked for over a hundred years:

Villagers in Appleton and Eaton claim motorising the weir would be a waste of money and would removed a much-loved element of local history. “It will be a tragedy when they are replaced.

“Apart from the initial installation cost of an automated weir the annual running costs to provide power to the electrical systems and maintenance costs will be a small fortune.
“But now the Environment Agency seems bent on spending unnecessary millions to achieve the same result.

“It doesn’t make any commercial sense whatsoever.”

And, with work soon to start on replacing the Northmoor Weir, we witnessed on this evening's local news - BBC South today - Tory MP Nicola Blackwood echoing similar views; arguing that she couldn't justify the expense to her constituents at a time of austerity, and complaining that no proper cost/ benefit analysis had been done.

Now, as anyone who follows the EU closely knows, anything to do with the environment, rivers etc will ring EU alarm bells - of the gigantic brass variety - particularly when "preserving the existing biodiversity and appearance of the river". And so it proves. Not only does river management come under EU Directive 2007/60/EC which:

...now requires Member States to assess if all water courses and coast lines are at risk from flooding, to map the flood extent and assets and humans at risk in these areas and to take adequate and coordinated measures to reduce this flood risk

But more specifically, as this Paddle & Rymer Weirs Replacement Programme Scoping Consultation Document makes clear the weirs fall foul of this EU required regulation (my emphasis):

The need for the project

The operation of paddle and rymer weirs is labour intensive. The Environment Agency has recognised that there are long-term health and operational issues associated with the operation of these paddle and rymer weirs, despite measures having been taken over the years to reduce the risks. A manual handling assessment (Williams 2009) concluded that there is a high risk of injury when operating these nine weirs because the guideline operational weights to be lifted/lowered as detailed in the Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 are significantly surpassed. The issues were highlighted during the 2007 floods, and could mean that the weirs cannot be operated effectively during periods of flooding.

The Manual Handling Operations Regulations 1992 which is based on European Directive 90/269/EEC.

Unsurprisingly all of this goes unmentioned by the various local media outlets and not least also by Ms Blackwood. As a Tory A-lister - her eye is on promotion within the Cameron set - it simply wouldn't do to point out inconvenient EU truths.

Past Its Sell-By Date

I've often argued that the 'success' of the EU lays in large part in the unwillingness of our media to report the true extent of how much the EU interferes.

Another fine example shows itself today, when the Telegraph reports:

[That it] has learned that the coalition wants an end to the confusing proliferation of instructions on food labelling which have greatly expanded over the past decade.

Of course it is complete nonsense, as EUReferendum and Autonomous Mind excellently point out. Food labeling is exclusively an EU competence there's nothing that the coalition can do about it without permission from Brussels:

The point is, of course, that the "best before" dates are not going to be scrapped. This is because food labelling is an exclusive EU competence and the provisions are set out in Directive 2000/13/EC of 20 March 2000 on "the approximation of the laws of the Member States relating to the labelling, presentation and advertising of foodstuffs" (pictured).

The Directive is transposed into British law by the Food Labelling Regulations 1996 as amended (several times), and there are absolutely no plans to amend the Directive, or change the Regulations.

It comes to something that blogs written by volunteers provide more accurate coverage of news than paid journalists. Richard North then links to a similar article written in July last year:

Interestingly, the Baby Failygraph did a story on this on 12 July 2010, with the heading "Best-before' is well past its sell-by date". It was written by Philip Johnston who suggested that: "A 'use-by' date would stop billions of pounds of food being thrown away".

In that article are even the following words:

Although the sell-by date was introduced by Marks and Spencer in the 1950s as a stock-control guide for store-room staff, it was not until 1973 that it appeared on the shelves in M&S food stores as "a guarantee of freshness".

Now I wonder what happened in 1973? Don't expect the Telegraph to tell you.

Cameron And Immigration

The papers this morning have clearly been briefed that Cameron is set to give his first speech on by far and away the number one topic at the last election - immigration. He's been in office for nearly a year now so why now? (A slight tangent here I do hope all my readers have now received their polling cards for next month's local elections).

Apparently the speech will be robust and I have been fortunate to see a preview of it. I reproduce it here in full, word for word so you can make your own minds up:

Immigration has imposed strains on some communities... blah blah blah....I recognise this and understand their concerns....blah blah blah...too high, so will introduce measures to reduce the levels....blah blah blah....these measures will apply for non-EU citizens.

Of course UK has no control over immigration from EU citizens and he knows it. He's hoping that the rest of us don't - that's the problem with stupid people they often assume others are as stupid as they are. People will know that Cameron's words are dishonest; they can see it for themselves all around them when the levels of immigration continues to be a problem.

And it looks like both the Mail and the Telegraph have also been briefed to hardly mention the EU aspect of it, if at all. It comes to something when it's left up to the BBC to mention the unmentionable which they did this morning on BBC Breakfast, so many times I lost count.

Update: I've just spotted that Nigel Farage gets the final word on the BBC site. Blimey I think I'm in shock:

UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage said it was a "good thing" Mr Cameron was recognising the impact immigration had had on communities across the country.

"But sadly there is not much he can do about it because the elephant in the room is the European Union and we have a total open border with all of them," he said.

Default Option: If In Doubt, We Can't Do It

Yet again a news item dominates the day's news and yet again there's always a problem that is treated as if it's He-Who-Must-Not-Be-Named - We mustn't mention it.

Today's news; retail banks should be ring-fenced, however some of the detail contained in the proposals breach EU law.

Reading stuff like this I often want to hold my head in my hands but I fear that doing so is probably in breach of EU law also.

I truly despair - if I'm allowed to as an EU citizen.

Guess What's Missing?

My MP Ed Vaizey has a regular column in most of the local publications across our contistuency as you would expect. Here's an extract from his latest column in my local magazine regarding fishing:

Over recent weeks I have received a great many emails on two issues in particular: fish and forests...The other issue that has excercised a lot of people is the future of our fish stocks. There is curently a very popular Early Day Motion in Parliament about the damaging practice of discarding unwanted fish. At present, when fishermen trawl for fish, they often throw back up to half their catch, because the fish are too small, too young or too unpopular a species to be sold. These discarded fish are mostly killed by being caught; they are beginning to pollute our seas which will harm the future of our fishing industry. It is also morally wrong, I believe, to kill animals that will not be eaten.

The Government is therefore looking at a number of ways to reform the fishing industry. There have been remarkable results from a pilot scheme which incentiveses fishermen to design more selective nets and DEFRA is looking at new quota systems that will measure the amount caught, instead of the amount brought into dock.

No prizes for guessing what is missing from Mr Vaizey's article - perhaps he forgot to mention it, afterall the Tories promised to get tough on the EU, so surely Mr Vaizey would wish to use this as an example of repatriation, by the Tories, of powers back from the EU.

Surely?

Sshh!

I've said before and the Talking Clock notes as well today, why, in the UK, do we have to rely on a Russian news site for televised coverage of the UK and the EU?

'Legal Difficulties'

Much is being made this morning that the Government is introducing minimum pricing for alcohol, although in reality no such thing is actually being proposed. Instead of a blanket minimum price per unit, it is being linked to the duty and VAT paid:

Under plans to be unveiled by the Home Office today retailers will be banned from selling drinks for less than the value of duty and VAT owed on them.

But the announcement means the Government has stopped short of setting a blanket minimum unit price for alcohol – such as 50p per unit – which would have pushed up the average price of all products.

And there's a very good reason for this, a blanket price per unit would have been challenged in the European Courts as I blogged here and here. Don't expect the Telegraph to mention this though:

It is understood officials were concerned such a move would run in to legal difficulties. Similar proposals in Scotland were dropped.

No elaboration on what those legal difficulties are, and not for the first time has the Telegraph stayed quiet. In contrast even the BBC managed to get around to mentioning the EU in its report, albeit briefly:

Last September, the Scottish Parliament rejected plans for a minimum price per unit of alcohol of 45p, after opposition MSPs said the move would penalise responsible drinkers and could be illegal under European competition law.

Predictably the usual fake charities are not happy:

Don Shenker, chief executive of Alcohol Concern, said: "Duty is so low in the UK that it will still be possible to sell very cheap alcohol and be within the law.

"The government needs to look again at a minimum price per unit of alcohol. That is the only evidence-based approach that will end cheap discounts once and for all."

How about the evidence based approach that our real government lies in Brussels not in London?