LETTER: Is Howard right to resist EU anti-racism legislation?
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.From Ms Sarah Ludford
Sir: Michael Howard is trying to make out that his resistance to an EU resolution on racism and xenophobia is a stand against unnecessary Eurocentralism. In reality, it is resistance to democracy and the rule of law in European decision-making. It is essential that all British citizens understand this in the run-up to the Inter-Governmental Conference (IGC) and a general election.
Your report by Sarah Helm ("Howard vetoes EU anti-racism drive", 24 November) referred to the resolution being drafted by the "highly secretive K4 committee of senior officials from all member states". The very name sends a chill down the spine! It is a committee of national civil servants - not, note, Brussels bureaucrats - who meet behind closed doors. They discuss policy and reach decisions on matters of vital importance to individuals such as visas, asylum, immigration, cross-border policing, drugs and terrorism.
But neither the European Court of Justice nor the elected European Parliament gets a look in. This is because the Maastricht treaty provides for intergovernmental co-operation rather than European Union competence for these matters, so only the governments of the member states, and not the EU institutions, are involved. Michael Howard says the interior ministers are happy. Well, they would be, wouldn't they? No messy democratic debates in open session and no inconvenient judicial review to bother with!
It is vital that this scandal is exposed, and remedied in the IGC. This is a story of democracy and law against secrecy and arrogance, not of admirable Albion against the crafty Continentals.
Sarah Ludford
Chair
Central London Europe Group
London, N1
24 November
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments