The Spectator's Notes

Thursday, 13th March 2008

Charles Moore's reflections on the week

Lord Vinson is a tenacious peer who is worried about the fact that three quarters of our legislation — because it now comes from Europe — is not properly debated in Parliament. He also suspects that when it is debated, the debate makes no difference. Three times, in slightly different forms, he has asked a question in the House of Lords about how often the European Union has altered legislation as a result of recommendations from select committees of either House of Parliament. Each time, the relevant Minister, Lord Malloch-Brown, has given the same written answer, which is ‘The information requested cannot be provided without incurring disproportionate public cost.’ So now Nigel Vinson has narrowed his question down: can the government ‘give any example of the incorporation into European Union legislation of a recommendation of the EU scrutiny committee of either House?’ It might be painful for the government to answer the question, but it surely cannot argue that it would be disproportionately expensive.

There has been far too much argument about the effect of ‘24-hour drinking’, due to the government’s change of the rules last year. The truth is that there is not, in reality, 24-hour drinking, and the reform has neither caused nor cured the mass drunkenness of boring young people in the centres of towns and cities. Much less attention has been paid to other aspects of the same Act. One is that the licensing of premises was transferred from magistrates to local councillors. This has politicised the granting of licences, and made people suspect that they now go to chums of the ruling parties in each council. Which greatly increases the resentment against new licences.

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

More articles from: Charles Moore | this section

Print this article | Email to a friend | Permalink | Comments (1)

Post this entry to: del.icio.us | Digg | Newsvine | NowPublic | Reddit

Post comment

DougS

March 13th, 2008 4:01pm Report this comment

Charles Moore is usually among the most astute commentators going; maybe because I've only read him on British politics, because his suggestion about Mrs. Clinton is absolutely absurd. As a practical matter (and I'm sure he knows this) it just doesn't work that way in terms of picking your VP from your party opponents. But whatever McCain thinks of Mrs. Clinton personally and as a member of the loyal opposition, their view of the world, politically, is completely different. Not a shred of logic: Yes, it would infuriate the Republican base (and his advisors would prevent it), but it wouldn't get any additional votes. No one votes because of a VP. And, too, McCain esp. at 71 has obligations to posterity with his running mate . . . and anyway there are tons of excellent Republican candidates for VP. As we "Yanks" say, Mr. Moore is coming out of left field with that one. Stick to British politics, Chuck, where there are few better (looking forward to the Maggie book(s)!).

Post comment