Following on from our post yesterday on the philosophy of regulation, we have received an e-mail from an Italian reader. He writes: Lord Pearson of Rannoch asked Her Majesty's Government: In today's leader in The Daily Telegraph, under the title, "Financial crisis: Banks need better regulation, not more," we read:Wednesday, October 15, 2008
How others see us
I have read with great interest the blog entry mentioned in subject. I cannot say how much I agree with this view.
Nuff said? The next thing, I suppose is that we have traffic lights that go: red - red/amber - red. Using green lights is far too dangerous.
I call the two philosophies "traffic light philosophy" versus"roundabout philosophy", being the first one where everything is regulated by what are rigid, inefficient, stupid rules that no amount of software or hardware can make working, and the second where people very efficiently regulate themselves using their own brains.
Of course, I cannot avoid to notice that in UK roundabouts have traffic lights ...
COMMENT THREADWho needs the EU?
Further to the Written Answer by Lord Rooker on 21 June 2007 (WA 71), which European Union legislation contributed to current waste disposal requirements in the United Kingdom; whether such requirements would be in force in the absence of such legislation, and if so, on what grounds.
The Minister of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Rooker):The Government's Waste Strategy for England, published in May 2007, summarises the Government's waste policies. Chapter 3 of the strategy covers the main legislation on waste disposal requirements and explains that most waste regulation in the UK is derived from EU legislation on waste. The principal EU directives controlling waste disposal are the waste framework directive, which was first adopted in 1975 and which is about to be revised and updated, and the landfill directive, agreed in 1999, which sets targets for the diversion of municipal waste from landfill. There are a number of other directives; for example, on waste incineration and hazardous waste.
We would have done it all anyway – all by our little selves. Just like everything else.
The principal objectives of EU waste legislation, which the Government fully endorse, are that waste be managed in a way that does not harm the environment or endanger human health, and that waste policies should contribute to action against climate change. It is therefore likely that, in the absence of any EU requirements, successive UK Governments would have put similar legislation in place.
The worst of this is, though, that the statement is probably true. That is why leaving the EU is a necessary step towards restoring our ability to govern ourselves, it is not, in itself, sufficient. That would only be the start of the process.
COMMENT THREADSomeone doesn't read the blog
Greg Hands MP has just woken up to the (very minor) changes to the "mark to market" rules, endorsed yesterday by the International Accounting Standards Board (or IASB).
This, Mr Hands informs us, was "apparently against their better judgement", but under pressure from "various EU countries, especially Germany, France and Italy". Clearly, he is unaware that a "common position", supported by the UK, was agreed by Ecofin on 8 October, with a formal proposal to be presented by the EU commission to the European Council today, where Mr Brown will agree it.
Nevertheless, the brave Mr Hands has been in Brussels in the last two days on a select committee visit. He has, he tells us, "used the opportunity to argue with anyone who will listen that the proposed change will be entirely counter-productive." "To be fair," he adds, "I think our Government agrees with me, but doesn't seem to have the clout to prevent it, despite their own belief that they are 'leading the world' in this crisis."
I think someone would be doing Mr Hands a service if they could gently take him by one of his hands and lead him here, and then take him here.
Then they can tell him why the government does not "seem to have the clout to prevent it", and that he is wasting his time. This issue is decided by Brussels – not by the provincial parliament in Westminster. Mind you, he could also benefit from listening to his own front bench.
One has to be a little bit kind to Greg Hands. He is, after all, a new boy. But it really does remind us about MPs that, when it comes to knowing what is going on, they really are that ignorant.
COMMENT THREADDo they read the blog?
… while greater supervision of the banks may be required, there should not be a rush to devise new rules and regulations that will do more harm than good.
And so, "wedded to the wrong philosophy", eh? Where have we seen that before? Meanwhile, from the heart of darkness in Brussels, we also get:
It is not a shortage of regulations that has been the problem; they have been in the wrong area and overseen by the wrong people, wedded to the wrong philosophy.
Politicians must beware convincing themselves that they can regulate an end to financial crises.Günter Verheugen, the European Commission vice-president, said that new laws covering the banks and money markets would ensure that "risks" become more transparent.
Just which planet is this man on? Has he any idea how much regulation already exists?
Speaking at the European Parliament in Brussels ahead of a gathering of more than 700 business owners to examine the impact of the financial crisis, Mr Verheugen said: "This is the end of an economic ideology which was not based on real experience and social reality: an ideology that told us, 'Don't regulate as the market will regulate', which is obviously not true."
COMMENT THREAD
Wednesday, 15 October 2008
Posts
