The coming USE - Switzerland falls into line with EU laws
Note: This is why when we do leave the EU it is imperative that it is entirely on our terms. These should be that we shall withdraw by a simple unilateral declaration and then trade with the EU as we do with the rest of the world. Let our quisling elite negotiate special relationships with the EU and they will enwrap us in its coils again. RH
November 3, 2009 - 2:25 PM
Switzerland falls into line with EU laws Image caption:
Close but not on the same level:
The EU and Switzerland
(Keystone) Related stories a..
08.02.2009
Voters endorse labour accord with EU b..
08.06.2009
Putting food on the table during tough times c..
18.01.2008
Foreign minister pushes bilateral deals with EU
Switzerland has been taking on an increasing number of laws from the European Union over the past two decades even though it is not a member of the 27-nation bloc. Thomas Cottier, a professor of European and economic law at Bern University tells swissinfo.ch to what extent legislation in Switzerland has already become compatible with the EU.
Switzerland is staying on the sidelines of the EU and a formal application for membership remains frozen. The government decided to focus on bilateral treaties with Brussels until further notice.
Nevertheless, a cabinet minister recently tried to reactivate a public debate about the advantages of EU membership for Switzerland.
swissinfo.ch: Do you agree with the Swiss government which warns that the bilateral path with the EU is becoming increasingly narrow? Thomas Cottier: I do, and for several reasons. For one the EU is today made up of an increasing number of members. In addition the issues to be negotiated are rather complex.
Agreement has to be found on different issues with all the members. As a result it takes more and more compromises to find a solution.
The EU has to be wary not to grant Switzerland any privileges which could make EU member states jealous.
swissinfo.ch: Is the rightwing Swiss People's Party justified in arguing that EU membership would mean a loss of sovereignty for Switzerland? T.C.: Strictly speaking this is correct. Membership in a supranational organisation results in a transfer of rights away from a sovereign country. The scope, so to say, would be reduced from the situation as it is today.
But in reality Switzerland is already suffering a considerable loss in sovereign rights. We take on EU legislation without having been able to influence its creation, let alone participate in the drafting of the bills.
From this point of view Switzerland position as non-EU member - or passive membership if you like ? is to blame for this.
Thomas Cottier (snis.ch)swissinfo.ch: Would EU membership necessarily spell the end of Switzerland's cherished system of direct democracy? T.C.: Not at all. Our research has shown that about 50 per cent of Swiss laws are directly affected by the EU. However, there is no or only an indirect impact on the rest of the legal regulations.
This is notably true for large parts of the law on cantonal and local levels where the instruments of direct democracy remain intact.
Direct democracy still has a role to play in the implementation of EU laws. A regulation could be rejected in a referendum for instance.
This is already the case with the packages of bilateral treaties which interlink accords - a model which has its pros and cons.
swissinfo.ch: How could Switzerland improve its international standing if it were to join the EU? T.C.: Switzerland would be able to break its isolation in Europe and could participate in networks on the level of governments, their administrations and parliament.
The country could take part in the legislative process, help set the political agenda and live up to its own democratic ideals.
At the moment this is made increasingly difficult because Switzerland has become dependent on decisions taken in Brussels or in other European capitals.
? Switzerland has become dependent on decisions taken in Brussels or in other European capitals. ?
swissinfo.ch: You're saying Switzerland is already part of the EU, but has no say? T.C.: That's right. Switzerland adopts as many EU rules and regulations as EU member state Austria. So there are no longer fundamental differences between the two countries.
But people in Switzerland are simply not aware of this in my opinion. The influence of the EU on Switzerland has a beneficial impact on life in Switzerland.
Take air traffic for example. It would not be possible to fly cheaply if it was not for EU laws. There are plenty of other examples.
swissinfo.ch: But why would Swiss voters probably still come out against membership at the ballot box? T.C.: It could be because they don't want to know better. On a political level the People's Party has been very successful with its anti-EU stance. Other parties were compelled to tread cautiously.
There is also a lack of transparency about the influence of EU legislation, as no official statistics are available on the issue.
Many wrongly believe that the impact of EU laws is limited to technical regulations, but far from it. Crucial legal areas, including cartel laws, social law and legislation on food are defined to a large extent by Brussels.
What's more the media tell you on a daily basis that the government is planning further legal amendments in line with the EU to strengthen Switzerland's economy and eliminate unnecessary trade barriers.
swissinfo.ch: The newly-elected interior minister, Didier Burkhalter, is known for his pro-European stance. Transport Minister Moritz Leuenberger recently called for EU membership. How justified is the apparent confidence? T.C.: Switzerland has gone through difficult periods with its foreign policy. There is growing awareness that the government can no longer represent the interests of the country sufficiently if it continues to go it alone.
I think that the concerns of citizens about an alleged loss of our tradition of direct democracy will be lessened when they realize how close Switzerland is to the EU.
Jean-Michel Berthoud, swissinfo.ch (adapted from German by Urs Geiser)
http://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/front/Switzerland_falls_into_line_with_EU_law s.html?siteSect=106&sid=11443698&cKey=1257265632000&ty=st
EVERYTHING THE EU WANTS - BUT NO FURTHER http://atangledweb.squarespace.com/httpatangledwebsquarespace/everything- the-eu-wants-but-no-further.html DateWednesday, November 4, 2009 at 06:27PM
DAVID CAMERON has - oh so predictably - given patriots, national sovereignty, the British Constitution and the Rule of Law the finger. In so doing he reveals his logic and constitutional knowledge to be as deep as his determination to live up to his cast-iron guarantees. Says this metropolitan sophisticate (my emph.):
We will give the British people a referendum lock to which only they should hold the key - a commitment very similar to that in Ireland. This is a major constitutional development.
But I believe it is now the only way to reassure the British people that powers cannot be given away without their explicit approval in a referendum. It is not politicians' power to give away - it belongs to the people.
Absolutely fine so far chum (we'll pass over that our useless Queen is the repository of our sovereignty and cannot give it away, even on the advice of her subordinate ministers). However, if our sovereignty today cannot be given away by politicians, they had no lawful right or authority to give it away under the European Communities Act 1972, did they?
Therefore the ECA is illegitimate and unlawful and must be struck down - mustn't it, Our Dave?
What a pickle these duckers and divers get themselves into. As for his 'constitutional lock', we have such a device already; it's perfectly good, served us well until Parliament became despotic a century ago and is contained within the Bill of Rights 1689:
And I do declare that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. So help me God.
I'm afraid that not for the first time Our Dave is talking through his hat. He cannot offer a 'constitutional lock' because such a thing is not in Parliament's gift. The Bill of Rights is a solemn compact between Monarch and Subject and, constitutionally, that is the only relationship that matters.
Martin Schulz, the leader of the EU parliament's socialist grouping, said: "All member states including the UK have ratified the treaty. If Cameron is talking of renegotiating it has little to do with reality and much more to do with election campaigning."
Swieboda pointed out the Conservative leader made no mention of opting out of European security and defence policy, another contentious area. As for the prospect of a British sovereignty bill, requiring a referendum on future transfers of power to Brussels: "Future treaties will probably not be possible. We are moving into a situation where this is it."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/nov/04/cameron-eu-lisbon-referendum- reaction
CONSERVATIVE HOME 5.11.09 Mats Persson:
The Conservatives are right to focus on EU social policy but only a comprehensive opt-out from all relevant Treaty articles will do
Mats Persson is Research Director at Open Europe.
An argument heard in some corners is that employment and social policy is the wrong battle for an incoming Conservative government looking to bring back powers from the EU. EU social legislation is stuck in neutral, the argument goes, and picking a fight on these laws would see David Cameron waste valuable political capital that he can better spend elsewhere.
True, the Barroso Commission has been less active than its predecessors in pushing through employment legislation, and EU enlargement has to some extent stilled the appetite for new continental-style labour laws.
But to argue that EU social policy has died a quiet death is just wrong. First, existing EU social and employment laws are having a massive impact on the UK economy. A recent study by Open Europe, based on over 2,000 of the Governments own Impact Assessments, estimated that regulations introduced in the UK between 1998 and 2008 have cost the British economy 148.2 billion. Of this, 36.7 billion, or 25 percent, stems from EU social laws alone.
Looking ahead and using the same methodology, EU social legislation will cost the UK about 71 billion between 2010 and 2020, even in the unlikely event that no new laws are introduced in that time. In terms of impact on the British economy, EU social legislation is therefore exactly the right place to start.
Social policy also continues to evolve in the EU courts. The scope of the Working Time Directive has been extended no less than eight times by the European Court of Justice.
In each of these rulings, the cost of the regulation has increased, and national autonomy over working time has been further eroded. The latest controversial ruling came in September this year, when the Court ruled that an employee who is sick during his or her planned holidays has the right under the WTD to take that leave at a later date an interpretation no-one anticipated.
It would be nave in the extreme to assume that the ECJ will not continue to interpret the WTD and other existing employment laws in a manner which could unpredictably extend their scope.
Take the new EU rules for temporary agency workers, for instance. This is another EU Directive with a billion pound price tag agreed only last year with which the courts could really have some fun.
In fact, the Courts behaviour illustrates another powerful argument in favour of repatriation: social policy is particularly susceptible to the type of incremental extension of EU powers which the Tories are now saying they want to end.
The Charter of Fundamental Rights in the Lisbon Treaty will also lead to new laws in this area. John Monks, General Secretary of the European Trades Union Congress jubilantly declared this week: Now that the ratification process is finally out of the way, we have to act and open new doors for social rights.
Presently, theres an inherent ambiguity in the relationship between member states and the EU on social legislation. This locks in the EUs infamous democratic deficit, and will be made worse by the Lisbon Treaty, because it makes this area of policy a confusing shared competence.
The German Constitutional Court made this very point in its dynamite ruling on the Lisbon Treaty earlier this year. The Court identified social policy as especially sensitive for the ability of a constitutional state to democratically shape itself, prescribing that the EU should have limited powers in this area.
David Cameron has said clearly that social policy would be one of three priorities for repatriating EU powers. He talked about tackling those parts of social and employment legislation which have proved most damaging to the British economy. Open Europe believes other policies should also be targeted, but social and employment law is a good place to start.
But in order to give their policy real teeth, the Conservatives must pledge to turn off every single tap from which EU social policy currently flows once and for all. In practice, this means opting out of all those articles in the Treaties which serve as basis for social legislation whether existing or future rather than picking and choosing individual Directives or segments of Directives, as Cameron seems to suggest.
Only a full, blanket opt-out will take the ECJ completely out of the equation and ensure that new, cumbersome rules arent pushed through against the UKs will in future. Open Europes new briefing explains which articles these are, and how to go about getting a comprehensive opt-out.
Sceptics argue that none of this is possible. But, contrary to popular belief, the British Conservatives are not the only ones in Europe frustrated about EU employment law. From Stockholm to Stuttgart, the experience of the WTD and other laws has made people seriously uneasy about the merits of centralised, one-size-fits-all rules for all the different labour market models currently co- existing in Europe.
If the Conservatives succeed in bringing back powers over these policies, it doesn't mean scrapping every worker or social right out there. It means giving Westminster back the power to keep, scrap or amend these key laws to better suit the UK's individual economic circumstances. If done properly, this would cut costs for the private and public sectors alike. And it would bring important decisions about social policy back to where they belong closer to families, front line workers and businesses.
Repatriating social and employment policy will be hard work, but its not impossible. The Conservatives should not be afraid to champion this new policy, with the help of allies in Europe. The democratic and economic case for doing so is compelling PH
6.11.09
Limits on surgeons' working hours 'will harm training and place patients at risk'
New limits on surgeons' working hours will harm their training and place patients at risk, experts have warned.
By Kate Devlin, Medical Correspondent
Controversial new European working laws mean all doctors, including surgeons, are allowed to work only 48 hours a week.
Introduced in August they have provoked fierce criticism from surgeons who say that new trainees will struggle to master their complex specialism in such a restricted time.
But the Government insists that having fewer exhausted doctors on wards means that patients are safer.
However, experts writing in the British Medical Journal say that complications and readmissions increase when restrictions are placed on how long surgeons can work, they write in the British Medical Journal.
They highlight recent working hours restrictions in American and say that they had a negative impact on training because surgeons do not have enough time to practise their skills. [- - -Or junior doctors to learn from their seniors -cs] This was even though doctors in America were still allowed to work almost twice as long as they are now able to in Britain. John Tarpley and Gretchen Jackson, both from Vanderbilt Childrens Hospital in Nashville, warn that limited hours cause alarming trends in surgery.
Studies have shown an increase in preventable complications and injuries caused to patients when working hours are restricted, they claim.
They also say there is evidence that surgeons perform fewer complicated procedures to ensure they do not breach their weekly working hours.
They also point to evidence that following the introduction of an 80- hour week [!] limit in America the amount of time that junior surgeons spent on cases involving fell by more than half.
First year trainees also assisted in 85 per cent fewer operations overall than their predecessors.
The doctors estimate that it takes an average of between 15,000 and
20,000 hours to become a highly experienced surgeon.
They called for fewer restrictions to allow flexibility over how long doctors work.
Surgery is a body contact sport, there is no question about it, they write. You cannot be a good armchair surgeon.
John Black, president of the Royal College of Surgeons, said: This BMJ paper provides yet more compelling evidence that the need for both cognitive ability and manual dexterity in surgery cannot be shortcut by reduced hours.
The European Working Time Directive has limited the hours that are available for surgeons in training well below the 15,000-20,000 the report suggests are optimal a flexible approach that will allow surgeons to work up to 65 hours we believe will redress this balance and deliver future surgeons who can practice independently.
A spokesman for the Department of Health said that there were no plans to allow doctors to wok longer hours.
He said: "Our overriding priority will continue to be ensuring that patients experience high quality, safe and effective care in the NHS.
Posts
