Why Roger is hopping mad
Tuesday, July 15, 2008 By coincidence, Conservative MEP Roger Helmer has sent me a copy of a post he has written for his blog. It concerns a hearing he has just attended in the European parliament. (Note: the hearing is NOT the reason I am in Brussels, although it could have implications for an initiative we are working on with our European partners.)
Roger writes:
A series of anti-smoking campaigners vied with each other to vilify the tobacco industry, accusing it of dreadful things like lobbying, and seeking to influence legislation, and promoting the interests of its shareholders, and doing other cynical things like awarding prizes for Corporate Social Responsibility and contributing to anti-AIDS programmes. The sort of things that just about all major industries do, in fact.
The World Health Organisation has initiated the Framework Convention on Tobacco Control (FCTC), which the EU and 26 member-states have signed up to (The Czech Republic, God bless it, has declined to sign). They are now producing "guidelines for implementation". Anti-smoking lobbyists are proposing that the guidelines should preclude legislators from speaking to the industry. Yep. You read that right. They want to ban MEPs from speaking to tobacco companies.
Frankly, I was hopping mad when I heard this proposal. It is absolutely fundamental to any kind of good governance that legislators should discuss proposed legislation with those affected, and that parliamentarians should talk to businesses in areas they represent. I represent the East Midlands, home to Imperial Tobacco. Hundreds of their employees are my constituents, and a quarter of my constituents smoke. I personally hate smoking, but I respect the right of my constituents to make grown-up choices. Imperial has already been hammered by the EU's Tobacco Directive, which like so much EU regulation had the primary effect of moving jobs, production and investment out of the EU altogether.
The WHO proposal is an assault on democracy. Listening to constituents, and to businesses, is a key part of what I am paid for, and I shall continue to do so without let or hindrance from the WHO.
If we start with tobacco, where do we stop? Many of my colleagues would like to start restricting the drinks industry. They believe that "Big Oil" is frustrating their attempts to curb global warming. Packaged food companies contribute to obesity. Cars cause accidents and pollute the atmosphere. They have problems with the pharmaceutical industry. This could grow into a full-scale assault on business and capitalism - which of course is exactly what many in the green lobby want.
The full post should appear HERE shortly.
Simon Clark
Full blog post HERE.
Reader Comments (7)
Why do people who defend smokers but who do not smoke themselves have to preface any comment by saying that they personally 'hate' smoking. I haven't smoked for 11 years. But before I started smoking 55 years ago I remember the lovely scent of Exmoor Hunt pipe mixture. I would love it today. Come to think of it, that brand is doubly politically incorrect.
I am not able to give timings and events, but I do know that the Tobacco Industry have shot themselves in the foot several times, (as have the anti smoking lobby, but they have the power at the moment, so they can keep it hidden). The tobacco industry are a business, and it was natural for them to close ranks and not agree with the anti tobacco fundamentalists. After all, anti tobacco would not fund the publication of the Enstrom/Kabat ETS/SHS study, so the tobacco industry did! Unfortunately, this has become a religious thing, We have the Church of Smokefree, who label the tobacco industry as the antiChrist, the satanists who say that what is bad is good, ie smoking, which has now become a sin. The Church of Smokefree accuse the tobacco industry of promoting tobacco in the third world, which they may well be doing, but it is alright for the WHO and ASH to promote antismoking in Africa, where there is a place where you can be imprisoned for smoking on the street!
So... what's he going to do about it? Are any other MEPs against it? What action will they take?
Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but it sounds like a statement of hopeless resignation.
I was rather thinking there might be some kind of punchline there that offered some hope, but it never came.
I've now read this piece by Roger Helmer twice. First here, and then somewhere else. It seems to be everywhere except his own website. Why is that?
I personally do like the smell/effect of cannabis but would not dream of banning it, so I am like Roger in being tolerant.
BTW Simon any chance you can bring me back some Golden Virginia, 50g please, as much as you can put in your suitcase. Lol.
Norman's right...I too have noticed several instances of commentators defending smokers' rights but who seem rather eager to point out how they 'hate' smoking. Well, thanks for defending our rights - no really, it's appreciated - but may I point out that I bloody LOVE smoking!
Is this the same WHO that tried to suppress their 1998 study into the effects of passive smoking , because it gave the "wrong" results?
Virtually every "self-help" book on whatever ailment, now has a stop smoking section. something along these lines "So, you have a terminal disease/ broken leg, wouldn't it be a good time to stop smoking?"
the world has gone mad!