Sunday, October 24, 2010

The dog that didn't bark?

Fascinating stuff from the Danish Blog Euro Zoo. (Google translation)
It suggests that despite the Government's official opposition it failed to actually oppose a serious piece of financial regulation,
EU Commission told EU ZOO that three parliaments protested against the proposed new rules for a so-called deposit guarantee - the Swedish, Danish and two German chambers. Three in total.
All very curious,
Britain's abortive protest naturally makes some entirely different issues. National parliaments have a period of eight weeks to say whether an EU proposal violates subsidiarity. However, national parliaments geared to handle the proposals so soon?

In the case of deposit insurance directive, made in July, had countries apparently received an additional period, perhaps in the light of summer. But many countries have sent no comments. There may be several reasons:

1) They could not get to respond.
2) They believe that the procedure is irrelevant (maybe they are counting not think the EU Commission will respond to any protest).
3) They seemed in fact to the specific proposal is perfectly fine and did not want to bother the Commission with an extra letter.
4) Parliaments' national representatives in Brussels had already sensed the Monday meeting that there was not enough parliaments behind a process and therefore gave up the exit of.
So what we have is the right to protest, as envisaged by the Lisbon Treaty, but a failure to do so.

Why not?

No comments: