Looking at
Page 12
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ii[Z7d( by Keith Vince'
Getting out—how it could be done
ALTHOUGH this New Year will not inevitably see a general election, for the Prime Minster, can carry on until the summer of 1984, all the political pundits are predicting that it will take place by next autumn at the latest.
The same pundits agree that the main issue will be unemployment. That is not something that can be considered in isolation from other economic issues, of which the most obvious is the control of inflation. Labour will no doubt concentrate on the former, the Government on the latter.
Underlying both these issues — indeed, the foundation of the economic policy of any British Government — is the question of Britain's membership of the EEC. The Labour Party is committed to withdrawal. This article examines what that would mean in the field of road transport legislation.
It is for readers to judge whether leaving the EEC would be a good idea. Nevertheless, it is relevant that a recent opinion poll showed that 60 per cent of the population favoured leaving the EEC. No political party can afford not to take such findings seriously.
Although withdrawal is an unqualified objective of Labour Party policy, it does have reservations about the means by which this objective is to be achieved. In a television interview on Channel 4 at the end of November Peter Shore, Labour's chief anti-Marketeer, admitted that withdrawal might take even longer than a full fiveyear Parliament. This delay would stem from the most important qualification in Labour's policy — that withdrawal should be , accomplished with the least possible harm to Britain and to the remainder of the EEC.
However, Mr Shore was quite .clear about the nature and timing of the first step which a Labour Government would take on the road out of the EEC. This would be the repeal of Section Two of the European Communities Act 1972. The crucial part of that Section reads as follows:
"All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the Treaties, as in accordance with the Treaties are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom shall be recognised and available in law, and be enforced, allowed and followed accordingly."
(The Treaties referred to are, of course, the basic EEC Treaties, including the Treaty of Rome, and the Treaty of Accession under which the UK undertook to observe them.) Although the italics are not used in the Act itself, the italicised words are obvisouly crucial. Their effect is to make every piece of EEC legislation part of British law without any action at all by Parliament. Indeed, they are so sweeping that at first sight repealing them might seem sufficient by itself to take us out of the EEC "at a stroke", to quote words used by Edward Heath in another context.
Readers will not be surprised to learn that life is not as simple as that. Dreams of a CPC bonfire outside each Traffic Area Office, or a mass rip-out of tachographs in front of Transport House, on the day the proposed repeal receives the Royal Ascent would be premature. So would an automatic return to the 10-hour driving day.
Although EEC Regulations and Directives automatically pass into UK law just as though they had been enacted by Parliament, they often lay a requirement on each Member State to "adopt such laws, regulations, or administrative provisions" necessary to implement the basic legislation. This is to take account of the different administrative and legal systems in the 10 different countries.
In Britain this is normally done by Ministers making regulations or orders, but sometimes an Act of Parliament is used. For example, the Directives which make compulsory the Certificate of Professional Competence, are implemented by regulations in the case of goods vehicle operators, and by the 1980 Transport Act for passenger operations.
Drivers' hours and tachograph law is even more complicated. It involves some of the most complex legislation ever seen outside the field of taxation.
Simply to repeal it automatically along with Section Two, without regard to the consequences of doing so, would leave an even worse legislative mess than exists now.
Moreover, it must not be forgotten that, while the industry's views on the CPC and the tachograph might be mixed, there are some EEC matters which are of undoubted benefit to operators. Those international hauliers lucky enough to have an EEC permit, for example, would not be pleased to have it suddenly revoked on the repeal of Section Two. Nor would those who carry out international operations on own-account want to lose the freedom from permits and quotas conferred by an EEC Directive.
Initially, repeal of Section Two would probably be followed by a "standstill" period, during which no newEEC legislation woulc implemented in the UK. Exist legislation would continue in force while the detailed terms for our withdrawal were negotiated.
This might have interesting results in the transport field. I seems quite likely that, at abc the time Section Two would t repealed if Labour wins the election, the EEC drivers' hou rules will be amended on line for which British operators hE been pressing. It would be ofl after all the efforts made by Britain, at both industry and Governmental levels, the amendments were not applie in this country because Sectic Two had been repealed!
Mrs Barbara Castle, now leader of the Labour Member the European Parliament, anc quite as staunchly anti-EEC af Mr Shore, has advanced the interesting idea that Britain should not formally start to negotiate itself out of the EEC She suggests that Section Tw should be repealed, and noth more. Repeal would be contri to EEC law; we should simply wait for the EEC to react by expelling us.
No country has ever been expelled, and the absence of precedent means that it woul, all take a long time. Indeed, there is a real possibility that contemplating expulsion mig cause the EEC to look at its procedures and policies mudl more critically than ever.
As we saw last month, getti 10 Ministers to agree is diffici. enough. When Spain and Portugal join, a further two wi compound the problems enormously. It seems at least possible that such drastic acti by Britain might give the EEC much-needed new lease of lif But whether Labour follow the Shore or the Castle path o thing is clear. Getting out of tl EEC is not a speedy way to simplify transport legislation.