A new Bill

Lord Pearson introduced a new Bill to the House of Lords, which was read for the first time yesterday. This is a formality that enables the Bill to be published and laid before the House properly.

A Bill to make provision for establishing a committee of inquiry into the economic implications for the United Kingdom of membership of the European Union.

Kent campaign launched

As Kent Online reports, Lord Pearson launched UKIP's campaign in Kent yesterday (and an admission is needed: there were gremlins at work when the Dover day was being reported on this blog), emphasising two issues, the economy and immigration. Neither of them can be solved while Britain remains in the EU because no member of the EU can be in control of either.

The journalist who reported the launch seems to have been thrilled to bits when he discovered that Lord Pearson made "a minor blunder" by not knowing that UKIP was supporting Boris Johnson's airport scheme for the Thames Estuary. As Lord Pearson admitted to not knowing it and as party leaders frequently forget details of policy, this seems to be a very minor problem.

A far bigger criticism is raised by Channel 4's so-called FactCheck blog about "the majority of Britain's national legislation coming from Brussels". Its author, Cathy Newman, seems to think it ironic that UKIP should be referring back to a statement by a former German President, which just shows that she cannot understand the difference between opposition to the EU and dislike for foreigners.

Ms Newman's arguments and various contradictory references prove the difficulty of calculating percentages of legislation. However, she seems unaware of the importance of the directly applicable EU Regulations, which she mentions only in passing, and the amount of legislation they produce. Her final verdict is that UKIP is probably wrong but nobody seems to know the answer.

It seems we do not have to ask the Commission

Lord Willoughby de Broke, the other UKIP peer in the House of Lords asked HMG about the proposed ban on mephedrone, which is widely opposed and has been described by various analysts as being illegal under EU rules, "whether they were required to consult the European Union before banning mephedrone".

HMG, in the person of Lord West again, thinks no.

The UK Government do not consider that they are required to consult the European Commission before controlling mephedrone under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

The technical standards directive is not designed to cover action by member states to control dangerous drugs and consequently no consultation with the Commission is necessary prior to laying a draft order before Parliament to control mephedrone under the Misuse of Drugs Act 1971.

It will be interesting to see if HMG's lawyers will turn out to be right on the subject.