EU regulation: a ban that failed
Friday 24 May 2013
 "It was a measure intended to help consumers, to protect and inform them but it is clear that it cannot attract consumer support", said the hapless Commission spokesman in Brussels. As a consequence, the "proposition" was being withdrawn, to demonstrate that the Commission had been "very alive to the current debate in the press". The reaction of Copa-Cogeca is interesting. This is the Brussels-based farming association, which is representing the olive oil producer interest. It says: "It is totally ludicrous that the commission just withdraws this measure due to political pressure - it has been discussed for over a year and passed through all the correct legal procedures". The association argues that it was necessary to ban refillable bottles and the traditional aceiteras found on restaurant tables, complaining that, "It is totally unacceptable that the Commission has done a complete U-turn and has succumbed to political pressure like this". This is from Pekka Pesonen, the general secretary, who goes on to add, "Perhaps it wasn't explained well enough". There, he has a point. The commission spokesman who originally set out the measure made a poor fist of explaining it, and there was no publicly-accessible background briefing that made a case for the ban. That said, the media wasn't interested in explanations, scenting another Brussels "red-tape folly" to sink its teeth into. For the hacks to give the context and the background would have spoiled their story. Nevertheless, it is no part of the media's job to explain our government's legislation when it fails to do so on its own account. We thus have here a small example of what happens when there is no democratic legitimacy behind a measure that was – certainly by Brussels standards – relatively sensible. COMMENT THREAD Richard North 24/05/2013 |
Woolwich: some sense at least
Friday 24 May 2013
A ban on troops wearing uniforms in public in the wake of the brutal killing of serving solider Lee Rigby on the streets of London has been lifted amid fears it gave the impression they had been cowed by extremists.
According to the Daily Mail David Cameron made clear at a meeting of the emergency Cobra meeting this morning that he felt the ban sent the wrong message, and made clear that "the best way to beat terror is to continue with normal life". It is understood that military commanders had issued guidance to all serving personnel in London to not wear their uniforms in public. Not for the first time, though, the politicians have shown themselves to be more in tune with public sentiment than the military brass. For once, David Cameron has done the right thing. But, if our troops in uniform are to be targets, they should be issued with side arms with which to defend themselves. In operational theatre overseas, British Army officers and men can carry sidearms such as holstered pistols. Until the beginning of the IRA outrages in the Seventies, as a cadet I would go on courses from my own Army base carrying a 303 rifle on public transport. Unease about off-duty soldiers travelling around armed is a very modern phenomenon, and it's a curious double standard that we query this but do not object to armed police, who are civilians, carrying rifles and machine guns. COMMENT: WOOLWICH COMBINED THREAD Richard North 24/05/2013 |
Woolwich: Who to blame?
Thursday 23 May 2013
 In his own words: "I apologise that women have had to witness this today, but in our land our women have to see the same." That's at the very heart of the matter: A British citizen who has more identity with the country of his family's origin than his current native country; someone who clearly exhibits foreign cultural values, but as the Guardian has it, he was born in Lambeth in December 1984 and he grew up in Romford. He is thought to have been radicalised ten years ago and does feature on MI5 files. From a broken family, it looks like a case of cultural (and perhaps social) isolation leading to a path of hate, nurtured by known extremist organisations. Anjem Choudary, the former leader of al-Muhajiroun, has confirmed that he knew. Choudary said Mujaahid had converted to Islam in 2003 and was a British-born Nigerian. He said he had attended meetings of al-Muhajiroun from around 2005-11, but stopped attending the meetings, and those of its successor organisations, two years ago. That's why this smells like a "lone wolf" style operation of a mad man - and unless there is evidence of an Al-Qaeda operation, I shall maintain that view. Blaming Islam, a faith of 1.2bn people, is a little bit too convenient to explain what is a deeper and more complex problem. This is more about identity and identity politics. The fact that Adebolajo was a convert should set alarm bells ringing. The convert usually holds the most extreme views in any school of thought, likely because they are keen to demonstrate their new identity and loyalty to their new found cause. This is most certainly a domestic cultural problem, not Islam, and it requires more understanding. As much as we have social cohesion problems, and those from alien culture have trouble adapting, and we don't know how to tackle extremists in our midst without violating basic freedoms and due process, I think this will boil down to just one of those tragic chain of events that couldn't have been stopped with all the hindsight in the world. I don't fully comprehend Islamic scriptures, but those of you who know me well will know that I know a thing or two about extremism, and while I don't have the capacity to kill, I certainly understand the impulse (just ask South Gloucestershire Council), and if this man had no stake in our society - and a head boiling over with propaganda, then nothing was ever going to stop him from killing. The justification is just the poison on the cake. You can blame Islamist literature and extremist organisations, but the views espoused by those agents of death vary little from Robert Fisk of the Independent or various other moonbats like Ken Livingstone, George Galloway and Noam Chomsky. Were we to close down all the purveyors of this kind of distorted filth, then we would have to start on Fleet Street. If there is a solution to this kind of attack, it is certainly more nuanced than those presently on offer, especially by our politicians, though they could be forgiven for being mealy mouthed in what they say. All must be careful not to ignite tensions. All it took was a mistake by the police to start three days of rioting and looting - which was entirely unrelated to "ground zero". Never have the very British words of "Keep calm and carry on" been more relevant. There are limits to tolerance, but we are not there yet. COMMENT THREAD Peter North 23/05/2013 |
Friday, 24 May 2013
Posts
