70% of laws made by EU claims European Free Alliance (SNP & Plaid)

In the first Nigel Farage vs Nick Clegg debates the Deputy Prime Minister claimed only 7% of our laws were made in the EU. In the second debate Farage countered this and Clegg changed his assertion was about ‘Primary laws’.

However in 2003 Nick Clegg said “Probably half of all new legislation now enacted in the UK begins in Brussels.”

Now the European Free Alliance which includes the SNP & Plaid Cymru have released a video for the 2014 elections claiming 70% of domestic laws originate from the EU.

This is very interesting after yesterday’s visit by Nigel Farage to Edinburgh where he praised Alex Salmond as the best politician in Scotland but criticised the SNP refusal to hold an EU referendum stating a ‘Yes’ vote would not give real independence as Scotland would be beholden to the EU.

Whilst the Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson had said UKIP & the SNP are very similar & the reason why UKIP hasn’t succeeded in Scotland is that the SNP already occupy the same ground.

Nigel Farage will be in Northern Ireland in the coming weeks.

, , , , , ,

  • FuturePhysicist

    Perhaps on the fact that 28 countries very neighbourly nations can agree upon 70% of their laws are common to some extent and agree to disagree about the rest.

  • DC

    Kilsally can I ask, if this is so do you believe as a UKIP rep that MPs and MLAs should actually be receiving pay freezes not increases given workload drift to Europe?

    National politics in the old days was about nutritious meat and drink, like about putting real food on the table and being able to put real food on the table, real jobs, today national politics is no longer able to supply quality food any more, no more three square meals on the table!

    National politics instead has gone the way of junk food, heavily marketed like confectionery and microwavable ready meals in an vain attempt to still try and pass for the real deal, the real nutritious we can make a difference to your life type thing; but this bluff is only contributing to the decline in health of national politics, contributing also to the political obesity crisis, negatively impacting on the nation.

    People nowadays are being fed political shite – junk – such as MPs selling themselves as just as important as they ever were if not more so to the life and soul and sustenance of the nation, which is clearly just a nonsense. Markets are in control more now than ever, markets and marketing sell you the junk food, sell you your junk politics, hope over realism, fat over fitness – your bank manager and investment banks call the shots, they indebt you and then Europe comes along and runs the vast majority of social policy and whatever else left.

    But still MPs and MLAs pay stills goes up though!

  • Mick Fealty

    No mention of the fact that most of these references the legislation regulation facilitating the common market. Most legislation in fact within Westminster the Dail or any of the other domestic need and national legislatures *is* actually made there.

    Clegg figure actually exists in the House of Commons research paper published in 2010, but since this is the lower figure and a broader estimate, he foolishly painted himself in as two on sceptically pro-European. Conveniently for Nigel.

    The broad claim in the headline however, I suspect is too broad to be credible. Not least because the figure or the proportion varies widely from nation state to nation state.

    Unless it is UKIP’s position that no legislation originating with the European Commission should be an acted nationally (and I am not sure it is since it is likely to have a negative effect on UK trade) this whole line of attack doesn’t make a great deal of sense.

  • DC

    Mick if technocrats are on the rise then national civil service professionals, national technocrats transposing EU laws into the national legal framework should be paid more, not democrats!

    I watched the EU Presidency debate on youtube yesterday and the argument for immigration is declining fertility rates in old Western states, the EU is in a catch 22, as it is no longer providing the economic growth by which to give its inhabitants the belief that they can bring their own children up in a society on par or better to the one that they have lived in. This is a negative mindset festering in young couples debating about families maybe even single persons considering relationships and families.

    That’s what causing a decline in fertility rates, in part any way, no jobs, lack of money, lack of money to have a family outside of state benefits. The EU’s answer to plug this is to ignore this problem and instead bring in citizens from shittier depressed countries to breed instead on the basis that they are more motivated to breed because they have left a shittier state for a less shittier state – that’s a positive to that family, call it a feel good factor! Such citizens doing this will get a buzz over the short to medium from having left a shittier state for a wealthier one yet one in rapid relative decline for the vast majority.

    Mick you see your argument against the English Premier League, its is apt for the condition of life in Britain, at the top are money men of the EU elite, opening up life to global forces just like the premier league has done brought in all sorts of talent from across the world while the English national team and game declines. The rest of us are bought off to live in relative decline, the elite take decisions at the top that enrich certain sections of society while the rest decline and will never reach the top. Social mobility is tanking and the EU I think is not helping!

  • DC

    Although Mick perhaps I shouldn’t expect you to understand, I am beginning to assume that you might be part of that elite.

    Apart from being anti SF which is far enough I am less sure where you stand in this context, as some posts you seem to highlight the detached EU technocracy, but then in contrast you seem to caution us over posts made by democrats wanting to wrestle some powers back from the technocrats.

    Which way do you want it Mick? Whose side are you on, the technocrats or the democrats – what would you like to see? Reform of EU powers such as more national control over certain things or are you content with existing level of EU control and its operations?

  • RT @fullfact Farage and Clegg are both incorrect with 7% and 75% of laws made in the EU: https://t.co/EzR2jy2fZr #phonefarage

  • Pete Baker

    “Nigel Farage will be in Northern Ireland in the coming weeks.”

    And Sinn Féin will welcome him with open arms. They may not be part of the European Free Alliance, but they agreed 100%.

    “Europe delivers over 70% of our legislation…”

    No sources quoted, natch.

  • Mc Slaggart

    The facts:

    Ukip editing things to make up to suit themselves.

    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20140502-1700c.mp3

  • DC

    Aye that graph really clears things up!

  • Harry Flashman

    “The facts:

    Ukip editing things to make up to suit themselves.

    http://downloads.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/radio4/moreorless/moreorless_20140502-1700c.mp3

    Wow! The BBC goes out of its way to defend the EU and attack UKIP, I really never saw that coming.

    I mean the totally balanced and scrupulously neutral attitude of the BBC to EU matters is legendary isn’t it?

  • Mc Slaggart

    @ Harry

    “The BBC goes out of its way to defend the EU and attack UKIP”

    What did the radio program say that was wrong? Attacking more or less radio program for debunking a political number and statistic is quite funny. What figures are you using for your claim?

    More or Less

    Tim Harford explains – and sometimes debunks – the numbers and statistics used in political debate, the news and everyday life

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006qshd

  • Mick Fealty

    Any one fancy dealing in the deal of the post above… (don’t all rush at once…)

  • I’ll give my own view, which is that of someone inside the Brussels bubble but not in the EU institutions, and mainly working on areas where there is hardly any EU legislation at all (ie foreign policy).

    My view is that it’s tremendously difficult to put a number on this. A lot of the so-called EU legislation is stuff that the UK would want to be legislating anyway even if there was no EU, on consumer standards for instance, and where the UK would always want to be convergent with its major trade partners. It follows also that a lot of it isn’t on terribly important stuff.

    What do I mean by important? In the most recent YouGov tracking poll, Europe is tenth in the ranking of issues voters care about, and of those in the top nine, only the environment is one where the EU factor is significant in UK legislation. The others are the economy, which does have a certain EU aspect but much less in the UK than elsewhere, followed by immigration, health, housing, education, pensions and crime, none of which really has a significant EU aspect in the UK. (There are EU initiatives on immigration, education and crime, but the UK has definitively opted out of the first of these and is heading for the exit on the last.)

    So I doubt that one could establish a robust number for this, and it follows that the Greens/EFA are wrong, Clegg is wrong and Farage is wrong. In any case, all EU legislation is scrutinised and voted on by both the member state governments (including the UK) and by the European Parliament (including British MEPs, though of course they are weakened by the fact that many of the UKIP ones simply don’t turn up). Portraying EU legislation, whatever the subject, as an imposition from unaccountable Brussels bureaucrats is simply a lie.

  • aquifer

    And if our own members fail to translate sensible EU regulations into local legislation, or let their departments neglect enforcement, they are hit with big fat fines.

    A tax on incompetence.

    Who can argue against that?

  • DC

    That no one knows exactly is typical of the EU – government is no longer in control of things being done to it and has lost the ability to account for things even the correct number of EU influenced laws.

    Same with migration figures from free movement, it is difficult to be precise there either about who is coming and going, perhaps there needs to be mandatory UK workforce monitoring as to national identity / country of origin to try and capture some info.

    I dont want to leave the EU just have reform of it and more control over free movement in times of a recession for good governance reasons not to mention I believe the EU has outgrown its strength by expanding too much beyond the small club of wealthier nations that it used to be.

    I dont doubt Nicholas there has been delegated influence over laws being made and impacting on the UK, UK officials will have had influence but they would be more on the technocrats side than the democrats, therefore i am not convinced that the work of democrats has still not been hollowed out and that pay should not be frozen.

    I also believe marketing has entered politics to try and mask the fact that national politics has been hollowed out by both the market and the EU and instead we are now being sold junk food in place of three square meals, that you couldn’t get a cigarette paper between the three main parties is proof of this – so marketing is used to big up the differences to make parties seem relevant and different. It’s just souffle politics.

    Then UKIP comes along and talks a lot about the problems and provides solutions not to everyone’s liking, drawing criticism across the range for having the audacity for being outside of the ‘cigarette paper’ and gets pooh poohed for being ugly for talking the politics of the commoner, the normal person.

    I will not be voting for UKIP but it’s good to have them to stress test the current position of the other parties on the EU and hopefully it leads to reform or resistance to more EU control of things.

  • Turgon

    Nicholas Whyte’s comments are instructive though perhaps not quite in the way he intends. It is probably difficult to tell how many of the laws come from Europe but equally many “British” laws are affected by the need to keep within European rules. Immigration which bizarrely Nicholas Whyte claims is a national issue is a classic example.

    Immigration from other parts of the EU is indeed affected by European legislation on free movement. EU citizens have free movement within Europe. That is a position which, rightly or wrongly, would be extremely difficult if not impossible to reverse with the UK in the EU. Immigrants from EU countries may not even be counted as immigrants but it is that immigration from Europe which has fuelled much of the recent debate in the UK on immigration.

    This viewing of things not as its own citizens see them is one of Europe’s problems. To EU enthusiasts immigration is about people coming to the EU from outside. For most people in the UK whatever their views on Europe or immigration (I have no particular axe to grind on immigration one way or the other) it is people coming from outside the UK which includes the EU.

  • I accept Turgon’s point that I have differentiated where many people would not, between migration within the EU and migration from outside.

    However, I’ll plead a technical defence – that EU internal migration is actually Treaty-based rather than legislative, so therefore doesn’t fall into the category of “new legislation” that Kilsally is trying to measure.

    Where “EU legislation” on migration (from outside the EEA) does come in, it applies only to the Schengen area, which does not include the UK and Ireland.

    So immigration from within the EU isn’t strictly part of EU legislation because it’s already covered in the Treaty; and immigration from outside the EU isn’t part of EU legislation for the UK, because the UK isn’t in Schengen.

    Another factor in public debate is that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled recently on a couple of UK deportation cases. But of course it is not part of the EU system, being a body attached to the Council of Europe.

  • Turgon

    Again perhaps unwittingly Nicholas Whyte demonstrates one of the besetting problems of the EU in terms of public trust and acceptability. Within the “Brussels bubble” the difference between the treaty effects on immigration and EU legislation effects may be seen to be relevant and important. In the real world such distinctions are not recognised as the out workings of the decisions are the same – more immigration. As such the attempt to claim that immigration is not affected by the EU is seen as disingenuous to the point of dishonesty.

    I think this sort of thing illustrates one of the EU’s biggest problems. It is the disconnect between the “Brussels bubble” and many citizens of the countries in the EU. They are speaking in a different language (often literally and almost always metaphorically) and inhabiting different worlds.

    The EU’s increasing defensiveness in the face of growing Euroscepticism risks creating a downward spiral of distrust and I suspect it is something many in Brussels simply do not understand.

  • Mick Fealty

    DC,

    That no one knows is down to the fact that someone (or some political parties) are engaging in demagogic simplification on the matter…

  • DC

    I just really can’t comprehend how if neo liberal financial markets have been proven to cause inequality and instability that running neo liberal labour markets is somehow a good idea and will not cause the same, the EU and free movement of people and workers untracked and unmanaged and unmonitored is neo liberalism – basically if the economy needs managed to run properly so too migration surely?

    Governments need to be able to anticipate things to be able to judge what to do and how to plan things and the government got totally caught out migration wise post 2004 with the EU states that joined the EU, it was living in hope that things would turn out OK and be alright on the night, this was not realism. So today to continue to have a sort of unmanaged free for all just seems so silly and as Turgon says it will likely come back and bite the government/s in the ass particularly if the economy doesn’t improve more so if it gets worse.

  • DC

    Mick the government has been living in hope England has been poorly governed as has the UK, the government doesn’t know because it doesn’t know – it doesn’t know because it hasn’t run the country properly, managed and monitored things appropriately.

    For inaccuracies on the number of EU influenced law swap that for inaccuracies on EU migration post 2004.

    Living in hope Mick, not living in the real world.

    That the instability and inequality hasn’t reached them is more to do with the powers that be being higher up the food chain, just like your English Premier League analogy, the powers that be are the Manchester United of this world, just trimming the sails to stay ahead while the rest are living in the sump or whatever you called it!

  • Scáth Shéamais

    Shouldn’t Kilsally identify himself as a UKIP election candidate in his posts?