Brussels diary
Sunday, June 5, 2016 at 18:22 I spent part of last week in Brussels.
The last time I was there, in December, my hotel near the European Parliament had armed guards outside and before you could enter guests had to empty their pockets, reveal the contents of their luggage and submit to an airport-style security check.
This time things were far more relaxed, although it probably helped that I was staying in a smaller hotel a bit further away.
Wherever I went I was asked about the referendum. Most of the people I spoke to were not so much pro-EU as, "This is the way it is, there's nothing we can do."
No-one tried to change my view that Britain should leave. Instead there was a sense of amusement that we're even debating the issue let alone voting on it.
What you have to understand is that in Brussels many people genuinely believe the EU is a single political entity and a major world power in its own right.
"Rival powers" are Russia and the United States.
For many therefore it is incomprehensible that any member state would decide to walk away from the strengh and security this self-proclaimed world power allegedly provides.
Far from being alarmed they find it funny. Let's see who's laughing on June 24.
En route to Brussels I got a call inviting me to comment on a recent OECD report that suggested tobacco tariffs could rise by 70 per cent if Britain left the EU.
Some analysts suggest this figure is exaggerated and ignores the possibility of the UK importing more from outside the EU if tariffs do go up.
Truth is, no-one knows what will happen if the UK leaves, or remains. There may be more unknowns if we leave but for me that's part of the appeal.
More of the same – including further integration in a federal 'super state' – is a foul, grim, wretched and even hellish prospect. So threaten us with higher tariffs (and worse), nothing is going to change my vote to leave.
I didn't say any of this of course because Forest has no position on Brexit. Instead I fell back on that time-honoured ruse:
"I'm sorry, it's a very bad line ... can hardly hear you ... train about to enter the tunnel ... hello?" [Silence.]
On this occasion however it was entirely true.
Tuesday was World No Tobacco Day. To 'celebrate' this annual event the European Parliament hosted two events, a half-day conference and a cocktail reception.
The latter was hosted by the Smoke Free Partnership, "a strategic, independent and flexible partnership between Cancer Research UK, the European Heart Network and Action on Smoking and Health (UK)."
Naturally I applied to attend but five hours after my registration was confirmed I received this reply:
Due to limited capacity and very high demand of participation to the event, I regret to inform you that we will not be able to accept your registration this time.
Very high demand? Possibly, but I suspect my application fell victim to this restriction:
The tobacco industry and those representing tobacco industry interests are not welcome, in accordance with the Guidelines of Article 5.3 FCTC. Due to the fact that the relationship between individuals and organisations representing [the] tobacco industry’s interest is not always declared, all registrations will be screened.
I'm not complaining. Assuming it was a private event they can invite or exclude whoever they want (although I would dispute that Forest represents "tobacco industry interests").
Nevertheless it's not a great advertisement for the European Parliament when events that actively prohibit legitimate stakeholders from engaging with elected representatives are supported and effectively endorsed by the host institution.
The sad thing is my expectations of 'public health' and the European Parliament are now so low I expected nothing else and so I double-booked dinner safe in the knowledge I wouldn't have to cancel.
While the World Health Organisation used World No Tobacco Day to promote plain packaging, pro-vaping advocates seized the opportunity to promote e-cigarettes.
Leading the way was Mark Pawsey, MP for Rugby and chairman of the All Party Parliamentary Group on E-Cigarettes whose byline appeared on an article published online by New Europe, a weekly Brussels-based newspaper.
Responding to WHO Director-General Margaret Chan who last year stated that “all governments should ban e-cigarettes or electronic nicotine delivery systems”, Pawsey declared:
E-cigarettes are helping millions of people to stop smoking. So I find it inexplicable that the World Health Organisation is threatening to ban them.
To this he added:
Given the mounting scientific evidence around the harm reduction potential of e-cigarettes common sense dictates that we should be doing all we can to endorse, promote and advocate their use among tobacco users – not ban them.
I've no problem with that. I do however have an issue with the fact that Pawsey finds it "disturbing" and "mind-bogglingly incomprehensible" that millions of people still smoke, commenting, "There are too many smokers in the world."
Too many? Who does he think he is to make that kind of judgement? And how many is "too many"?
Like me Pawsey is a non-smoker but at least I've made an effort to understand why many people smoke. I also recognise that smokers aren't easily categorised. (Ditto vapers, btw.)
There are many types of smoker including one very important group – adults who know the health risks but enjoy smoking and have no wish to stop.
David Hockney, now in his seventies, is a member of that group. He has explained many times why he smokes. In 2007, for example, he told the Guardian:
I smoke for my mental health. I think it's good for it, and I certainly prefer its calming effects to the pharmaceutical ones (side effects unknown)
In 2009, also in the Guardian, he wrote:
There are a lot of people who don't like smoke or smoking but there are a lot of people who do. Tobacco is a great calmer, it relieves stress, it can put you in a contemplative mood.
Hockney, a friend of Forest, has continued to write and comment in a similar vein.
Meanwhile, in an interview in the Mail on Sunday last week, actor Jeremy Irons said of smoking:
For me it's a sort of meditation, it calms me."
There are other reasons why people smoke but like the never smoker he is Pawsey finds it "disturbing" and "mind-bogglingly incomprehensible".
Personally I find it "disturbing" and "mind-bogglingy incomprehensible" that anyone, especially a politician, would admit to having such a closed mind.
Unfortunately an increasing number seem to wear their ignorance and incomprehension as a badge of honour.
The result is that even pro-vaping advocates like Pawsey are as much a part of the nanny state as the Brussels' bureaucrats they condemn for over-regulating e-cigarettes.
His comments also demonstrate that on issues like this there's very little to choose between Brussels and Westminster. In Britain as in Europe state paternalism is alive and well.
See WHO celebrates World No Tobacco Day, ignores potential of e-cigarettes (New Europe).
Reader Comments (13)
Leaving the EU is about one issue for me - the value of my vote. If we stay there will be no point in ever voting again in this country because no matter what party we vote for, nothing will ever change because the EU and it's directives still win.
The only way to hold our politicians to account for the way they treat us with such contempt and ignore our concerns about the corruption of the anti-tobacco lobby is to show them at the ballot box.
As we have found out now via two general elections, our vote is worthless as long as our politicians have to do as some other unelected and unaccountable international Governing body tells them what to do.
I agree, Pat.
Well said Pat. It's not only around smoking though, the EU federalists will certainly stamp their authority on us if the vote goes their way.
The lies about smokers and the affects on their families abhor me and are totally based on the tactics of 2WW lies.
They've been caught out by those that are educated enough and are unable to accept that they followed lucre over truth.
The best thing that any government could do in a democracy is to allow the freedom of their citizens to live and pass their formula to their offspring.
Hopefully freedom will always prevail. Temperance movements, like now, kill.
I agree Helen. Smoking is a trivial issue except to those who made such a huge mountain out of a molehill and forced the rest of us into a stance of active defence of our way of life.
My MP is great and worth voting for on this and many other issues - but there is no point while we remain in the EU. He writes to the ministers on my behalf, and that of others, I am sure, but these so called ministers send out automated replies, written by lobbyists in their departments, usually quoting some agenda they're sticking to, or some EU inspired legislation they appear unwilling to challenge.
If our Govt and our MPs, of whatever parties, knew that to dismiss constituents, on this or any issue, with such neglect would lead to not only a change of MPs, and party in power, but changes to an actual agenda or system too so that laws more accurately reflect and respect the views of the people who live here - of whatever race, lifestyle, gender, sexuality, etc - then they may just accept they must listen and represent everyone and act accordingly or else.
And like Frank Davis says, today they want so called "equality" (although I'd argue it is conditional equality - ie - if we like you or your way of life, then you're equal, but if we don't then you're not) but what happens 10, 20, 30 years down the line? What if a Hitlerite was to emerge again in time? Could history repeat and could we, without the power to hold the EU leaders to democratic account, ever get rid of such a regime after handing over our powers for cheap flights or cheap tobacco?
https://cfrankdavis.wordpress.com/2016/06/03/we-are-already-back-at-1940-mr-stewart/
Democracy matters. That's the bottom line. We are currently denied this. Ask any one of the vast majority who signed against Plain Packaging.
.
Pat, I totally agree with the majority of what you say, however I do believe the early Hitler years have already arrived.
You hit the nail on the head when you wrote about conditional equality.
Thanks - I'm going to pinch that terminology, if you don't mind.
I'm still trying to get my head around how much is being publicised about mental health at the moment. Successive governments have caused the issue due to following funding and fanatical lies.
What a smokescreen and as if they care.
The establishment appear to ignore history, the fact that people are individuals and just follow the funding attached to the perfect human being.
PHE is a perfect example of their ventures.
I’ve been racking my brains lately, wondering where I could flee to in the event that the Remain campaign win, or that the Leave campaign win and the hugely-pro-EU majority of our so-called “representatives” (yeah, right), find a way of blocking the exit anyway. The trouble is, I can’t think of a single place that’s halfway liveable-in that isn’t either (a) already under the yoke of the EU or (b) an anti-smoking hellhole that I wouldn’t even want to visit for a holiday, let along live there. Any ideas, anyone?
I have a problem with politicians of the EU and their tobacco product directive and UK politicians who violate intellectual property rights of tobacco companies. Neither are worth supporting.
Misty. Try Italy. The further south, the more both EU directives and anti-smokerism is ignored. I'd head for Sicily
Off topic, Simon, but I was reading the 'Forest News & Events' which was in my inbox today, and in it is written:
Over 1200 pubs have closed since the smoking ban was introduced.
According to The Pub Curmudgeon, who has a box in the sidebar which keeps a tally of pub closures since the smoking ban, the figure is actually 16,022 - more than ten times the figure quoted.
@ Misty & Pat - If you're looking for a smoker-friendly country, and you don't mind being within the EU, then Greece is probably one of the best. I've lived here for years, and there are very few bars and restaurants where you can't smoke. In this country, smoking really is normal.
nisakiman, the 1200 figure is the number of pubs that have closed in Scotland since the introduction of the smoking ban in March 2006. I don't know what the figure is for England & Wales since the ban was introduced in 2007. The figure you mention, 16,022, seems exaggerated.
According to an IEA report by Chris Snowdon (Closing Time: Who's Killing the British Pub?, December 2014):
"The UK has lost 21,000 pubs since 1980. Half of these closures have taken place since 2006. This paper examines the likely causes of the recent surge in closures.
"Taxation, regulation and the recent decline in disposable incomes are the leading causes of the decimation of the UK pub industry since 2006, responsible for around 6,000 pub closures. The smoking ban and the alcohol duty escalator are particularly culpable.
"Long-term cultural changes have been responsible for a further 4,000 pub closures."
That analysis seems more likely to me.
To continue this OT thread, whatever the true figures for pub closures are, none of the numbers quoted ever take into account those pubs which, whilst still nominally "open" are now very little more than eateries with a bar attached and a pubby-sounding name. I know those don't count as closures as such (because, of course, they haven't actually closed), but as far as the UK's unique British pub, and the equally-unique service which they used to offer to their local communities are concerned, they are every bit as "closed" as those which are now offices, mini-markets or characterless, modern flats.
Many are still eye-sores that the communities who frequented them are now regretting their closures.
The temperance movement and PHE lies have a lot of questions to answer when the truth is prevailed.
Jobs for the boys at the moment though - hey ho.
Until we vote OUT of the EU Helen and then our vote here in general elections will be worth something again and allow us to vote OUT of our parlt those who are backing the smokerphobic extremists like Debs Arnott and her fellow smoker haters.