A new Euromyth – born from the EU doing its job exactly as it should

Courtesy of today’s Metro freebie (published by the same lot as are responsible for the fervently anti-EU Daily Mail):

“Traditional loaves of bread could soon be replaced by packs containing just four slices under a new EU ruling”

It’s a disgrace! How dare these Brussels bureaucrats take away our sliced whites! How dare they presume to allow us to buy only enough bread for a couple of rounds of sandwiches!

Then read on:

“Existing British rules mean packaged bread can only be sold in 400g or 800g packs”

In other words, in an attempt to liberalise the food market, Brussels is planning to abolish such pointless restrictions, allowing consumer demand to shape the size and quantity of packaged food.

It’s not so much “be replaced by” as “be complemented by” – but let’s not allow petty little things like facts or accurate reporting get in the way of a good anti-EU scare story when we’ve got a captive audience of several hundred thousand commuters reading our drivel, eh?

The Metro – mindless dross that it is – carries on (in a wonderful description of a free market system – emphases mine):

“there will now be a free-for-all on sizing for items like ice cream, frozen food, detergents, pet food, low-alcohol drinks, soft drinks, paints, shampoo and toothpaste [at this point the subs can no longer think of additional products and give up]. The EC claims the idea, which could be approved by Euro MPs early next year, will give shoppers as much choice as possible.”

How DARE they give shoppers choice? How DARE they remove pointless domestic regulations that prevent pensioners and single people from being able to buy anything less than half a loaf when all they might want is a few slices (a system that works very well in Japan, amongst other places).

Finally, in the (never-read) second-to-last paragraph, we get the real story:

“The decision replaces 25 national packaging rules and two EU directives on quantities with one single EU-wide law leaving packaging up to market forces”

So no more scare stories of our pints of milk or pounds of butter being under threat – perhaps even an end to the “metric martyrs” business – as all restrictions on how food is packaged are removed in one fell swoop. If this new law is passed and works properly, if the market calls for food to be sold in Imperial measures, food can be sold in Imperial measures.

So, were the Metro to be slightly less rabid in its following of the Associated Newspapers anti-EU line, the story should perhaps have read “The EU does what it’s supposed to do, reducing pointless and restrictive food regulations and freeing up the market”. But as we all know from decades of reading anti-EU scare stories, Brussels NEVER cuts back on regulation. Oh no…

26 comments
  1. Doormat said:

    Excellent! Not much more to add than that…

  2. Jonn said:

    What I don’t get is…

    The right-wing press always claim they’re only anti-Brussels because it’s the home of regulation and the kind of lunatic socialism that was rightly swept away by St Margaret in the 1980s.

    So surely, when it proposes such genuinely free market measures, they should be all in favour.

  3. Yes, but when they’re coming from a position (a la Worstall and Devil’s Kitchen) that the EU simply should not exist, whether it does good or not, it becomes very easy to overlook the good on the (admittedly fairly rare) occasions that there are no real downsides.

    Plus, of course, there are sections of the anti-EU press and public who will always assume that anything coming out of Brussels is going to be negative, and respond accordingly, even when there is less than no indication that there is anything bad contained within the new (in this case only proposed) legislation.

  4. If this new law is passed and works properly, if the market calls for food to be sold in Imperial measures, food can be sold in Imperial measures.

    Actually, a lot of commodities are already sold in imperial measures, disguised in long-winded metric figures such as the 3.41 litre bottle of milk in the fridge downstairs, and the 4×2 planks of wood (which, once planed, aren’t 4×2 anyway) sold in millimetres which you have to decode when dealing with it. I don’t see why the so-called metric martyrs did not use the same trick as everyone else did.

  5. Absolutely. 454g of beef mince is just right for making a good ragu. Fact.

  6. I don’t see why the so-called metric martyrs did not use the same trick as everyone else did.

    One word: “stubbornness”. Although they’d probably opt for “principle”…

  7. ken said:

    As I am sure you know the “Metric Martyrs” business as you call it has very important legal ramifications and is nothing to do with any Euromyth.

    Briefly; the prosecution was for selling in lbs…A British Act of Parliament says it is legal. A European Union Directive says it is not. The British act was introduced some years after the European Directive, up to this case it was Westminster protocol that a later act of parliament overturned/ replaced/ was superior to a previous act. Steve Thoburn s defence was based on that assumption, he lost his case because Lord Justice Laws ruled that the EU accession treaty was a constitutional act like the Magna Charta and the Bill of Rights 1689, and thus is could not be simply repealed or changed by an ordinary act of Parliament. Laws made the point that any constitutional act could be changed but only if it was clearly stated (on the act itself) intention of parliament to do so.

    Taking Laws ruling at face value means that the Bill of Rights 1689 has not been changed by any act which did not specifically state that the intention was to change the Bill of Rights.

    The Metric Martyrs campaign has now moved forward with other challenges based on Justice Laws ruling that the Bill of Rights was a constitutional act which cannot have been changed by implication. So far Laws ruling has not been challenged by the government or any succeeding legal ruling. If it were to be successfully challenged then that would of course reverse Laws Ruling and mean that the Metric Martyrs were innocent of the charges against them.

    It is far to simplistic to link this very important constitutional case and the resulting ruling with any scare story.

    As to the basic argument that the pint of milk or the lb of butter is not under threat when was the last time you or any of us bought a lb of butter?

  8. Erm… Actually, wasn’t the prosecution for NOT selling in metric units? The main chap initially got done for having an imperial-only set of scales, breaking the (UK) Weights and Measures Act. Subsequent prosecutions were not – if I recall – for selling in pounds, but for not labelling in metric units as well, following the Yusuf/Jarndyce model above.

    (And I’m not going to even start on your fundamental lack of undertanding of the British legal and constitutional system based on your misreading of the implications of a single, erronious judgement from a single erronious judge – we’ve been there too many times before…)

  9. ken said:

    No the original trader sold in Pounds and Ounces but he did dual price and had metric scales should anyone wish to make a purchase in metric. Section1 of the 1985 Weights and Measures Act, says traders were permitted to sell loose goods in EITHER imperial or metric measures. So they were not breaking British law according to that act which I belive is the point.

    My understanding of the British legal and constitutional system is that Parliament is sovereign and can make any law it wishes, that a later law replaces an earlier law, which I belive is something like your contention.

    Lord Justice Laws argued that this is not the case, there is in fact a hierarchy of acts of Parliament. So in this instance because the 1972 act of accession to the EU was a constitutional act it was not superseded by the later 1985 Weights and Measures Act.

    Lord Justice Laws ruling may well be erroneous, it was certainly thought to be by the “metric martyrs” but under our system until it is overturned by another judge’s reasoned argument then it stands as law in this country. That really is the point at issue; If Laws is wrong then that must mean that there is no hierarchy of acts of parliament, which in turn means that the 1985 Weights and Measures Act did superseded the 1972 act of accession, which means that the Metric martyrs were not guilty of breaking the law and should not have been punished. If Laws is wrong then that also means the Bill of Rights 1689 has been changed several times by implication, as has the 1972 act of accession to the EU.

    If he is wrong then at some point a judge will rule against him but until that happens he is right and there is a hierarchy of acts, this point was made in your link to a separate case “Human rights groups and lawyers hope the Lords will make equally short shrift of Laws’ latest ruling”.

  10. ken said:

    I have looked further into the Laws link you posted, it would seem there they are arguing that Lord Justice Laws is pro-government or perhaps pro-establishment would better describe his position.

    If the “metric martyrs” ruling is put in that context it would makes total sense, as he was faced with the argument that the later law overturned the earlier law, he had to find some reason to rule against what was the generally accepted understanding of parliamentary protocol, he had to find some way of overriding the later act of parliament, hence his ruling of the hierarchy of acts. Perhaps unwittingly he has opened Pandora’s Box because until he is overruled challenges can and are being made using the older constitutional laws such as the Bill of Rights.

    The latest legal ruling relevant to this was only last month when Lord Justice Collins heard a challenge to the 1991 Road Traffic Act, which provided Local Authorities with the power to introduce ‘decriminalised’ parking enforcement. The challenge was that the Bill of Rights says “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”.

    Hence the argument is that a parking fine is not legal because it is issued without recourse to the courts.

    Oddly, although this was perhaps the perfect opportunity to overrule Justice Laws, Lord Collins did not do so, instead he came up with another reason why these charges are legal; his ruling is that a parking fine is not a fine?

    So in essence he sidestepped the Laws ruling leaving it unchallenged, it might well be argued that he accepted Laws ruling because he did not say that the Bill of Rights had been overturned by the 1991 Road Traffic Act.

    I do not know why you should object to the “metric martyrs” they are trying to prove that you are right and Laws is wrong, they are trying to prove their innocence, by making legal challenges using the Laws ruling in the hope that it will be overturned.

  11. Oh gosh, so mny points to address.

    If this new law is passed and works properly, if the market calls for food to be sold in Imperial measures, food can be sold in Imperial measures.

    Erm, yes and no. Yes, it can be sold in Imperial measures, in that 492 ml (or whatever it is) is indeed a pint, but this does not change the fact that primacy must be given to the metric measurements. In other words, you cannot buy “a pint” but you can buy 492 ml which you can call a pint if you like. It is sophistry but largely irrelevent.

    The UK gained an exemption in that you can still advertise prices in Imperial measurements but you must give prime emphasis to the metric measures. This is what the metric matyrs refused to do.

    In theory, the idea is fairly sane, i.e. that, wherever you are within the EU, everyone will be using the same measurements and will thus be able easily to compare costs. Where the British got stubborn (and was the main justification that the Metric Martyrs used) was in that British people, in general, have more of an idea of what half a pound weighs than half a kilo.

    It’s all fairly irrelevent: what it was useful for was highlighting the issue that EU Directive take primacy over our own laws (unless we gain an exemption at the EU level, as we did for some parts of the Working Time Directive).

    Yes, but when they’re coming from a position (a la Worstall and Devil’s Kitchen) that the EU simply should not exist, whether it does good or not, it becomes very easy to overlook the good on the (admittedly fairly rare) occasions that there are no real downsides.

    Master Worstall and myself, of course, object to bureaucracy and excessive regulation in all its forms and thus oppose the original restrictions as introduced by the British government in any case.

    We object to the EU particularly on two main basic grounds. Firstly, on the grounds of democratic deficiency: the only body who can initiate law in the EU are the Commission who are unelected and thus unaccountable to any electorate.

    Secondly, it is imports that make us rich (see here for an amplification of this). The EU raison d’etre is as a customs union: thus they place tariffs on incoming goods and thus make us all poorer by its very existence.

    NM recognises these points (I think), but believes the EU can be reformed: our reply is that it could be reformed to do what precisely?

    [Lord Collins] came up with another reason why these charges are legal; his ruling is that a parking fine is not a fine?

    Simple: they were designated not as fines but as “administrative charges”. This allows those running the parking firms to sidestep the Bill Of Rights. Now, you can challenge those charges, but you must bring the case to court yourself.

    Sorry, must dash; have things to do…

    DK

  12. In other words, in an attempt to liberalise the food market, Brussels is planning to abolish such pointless restrictions, allowing consumer demand to shape the size and quantity of packaged food.

    It’s worth pointing out that the original “pointless restrictions” were themselves brought in by the EU.

  13. I don’t care if it’s the best idea since, er, sliced bread, I just do not want my country run under rules and regulations imposed on us from a bunch of foreigners.

  14. It’s worth pointing out that the original “pointless restrictions” were themselves brought in by the EU.

    Quite.

    DK

  15. Fred said:

    “The decision replaces 25 national packaging rules and two EU directives on quantities with one single EU-wide law leaving packaging up to market forces”

    “It’s worth pointing out that the original “pointless restrictions” were themselves brought in by the EU.”

    EU standards on packaging where designed to harmonise the pointless national regulations so that they do not interfere with the flow of goods between member states. The pointless regulation here stems from a national level and the EU has always been attempting to limit the impact these laws have on trade. The only difference is that now the EU has decided to simply abolish most of the national regulations instead of trying to limit the damage they do.

  16. I’m pretty certain that Fred’s right here, chaps – after all, if the pointless regulations stemmed from the EU, how come they’re different in each member state?

  17. Jonn said:

    NM recognises these points (I think), but believes the EU can be reformed: our reply is that it could be reformed to do what precisely?

    Entrench free-trade and fight protectionism at the transnational level.

    Enable free flow of goods, people, services and capital.

    Provide a forum for closer working on issues that go beyond national borders – these may be big issues (the fight against terrorism or organized crime, looking for ways to preserve the environment without knackering the economy); or much more mundane ones (completing the trans-European transport network to enable trade).

    Entrenching alliances between states and allowing for a forum in which arguments are framed as questions of politics rather than military matters.

    Where states agree, give Europe a larger voice in global affairs: at a time when the world is increasingly going to be dominated by the US, India and China, smaller states like the Netherlands or, hey, even the UK are going to have ever decreasing clout on their own.

    …I’m not saying that current EU does all these things effectively, or even at all. Reform is certainly necessary. But there are plenty of things that the EU could be doing. Imagine if the impact if the union were to unilaterally abolish all tariffs and subsidies, for example. This clearly isn’t happening any time soon, but if it did it would represent a far more effective clearing away of bureaucracy than could be done at the national level.

    The problem is the irrationality of emotional statements like this:

    I don’t care if it’s the best idea since, er, sliced bread, I just do not want my country run under rules and regulations imposed on us from a bunch of foreigners.

    …isn’t going away any time soon, even if the EU were a lot more effective than it is and the democratic deficit were corrected.

  18. Jonn,

    Good points, which I shall address in a post later today (have to do some work first) but just a quickie.

    “Enable free flow of goods, people, services and capital.”

    This could be put aother way:

    To disable any one country’s wish to limit the free flow of goods, people, services and capital.”

    With, of course, the “free flow of people” being the contentious issue. The point is that if a country wishes to limit some of these, should they be forced? And by what authority?

    This country, for instance, has never, ever had a referendum on joining the EEC, EC or the EU. There is a severe democratic deficit, not only in the EU as it stands, but also, on this issue, with our own government.

    I’ll write more later.

    DK

  19. Ieuan said:

    David Duff said: “…….I just do not want my country run under rules and regulations imposed on us from a bunch of foreigners.”

    Quite agree – so where have you been since the 1940’s when we gave the Americans sovereignty over large parts of British soil? Walk onto any US base in the UK and it is American law which holds force, not British law. I fell foul of this in the 1960’s when I took a photograph of a little league baseball match on a US base and was arrested (taking photos of little league baseball matches is illegal without written permission from the little league – in the US! – and all US military establishments in the UK are classified as US sovereign territory).

    The world is getting more and more interlinked, we can’t avoid ‘foreigners’, but better Brussels (who are at least European) than Washington.

  20. chris said:

    Any chance of a link to the original article?

  21. Chris – I had a quick hunt on the thisislondon site, where Metro stories used to appear, but no joy. I’ve since realised that’s because that’s now just for the God-awful Evening Standard and the piss-poor London Lite. Metro stories are now supposedly available on metro.co.uk, but I couldn’t for the life of me find that one with their clunky search system. Sorry, etc.

    The story does, however, also feature (in a decidedly more positive form, as this is a website aimed at the food industry itself) at CEE-FoodIndustry.com

  22. GG. Tingey said:

    Begin Quote>

  23. tom p said:

    DK – the piece you linked to by Tim Worstall didn’t really explain how imports make us rich at all. Imports are things that we pay for and that we want, but me buying a lovely shiny new Ferrari wouldn’t make me rich. It’d make me happy, but it’d also make me poor.

    Me selling a shiny ferrarri would make me rich. It is exports that make us rich.

    the letter he cited used a straw man in the sentence “But if the purpose of economic activity truly were to produce and sell as much as possible in exchange for as few goods and services as possible”.
    Selling lots gets lots of money in, that money can then be spent how one likes.
    I’m no economist, but it seems pretty straightforward to me.

  24. Jonn said:

    Tom – imports give us access to cheaper products than we can make at home, so they do in effect make us – or, at least, those of us who can afford stuff – richer.

    One problem, however, is that globalization has losers: unskilled workers are likely to see downward pressure on their wages as they face competition from cheaper workers in Asia. In this sense there are those who imports could, in effect, make poorer – something that, until recently, politicians have been loathe to admit.