26 years ago, The Sun splashed this headline, which turned into one of the arch-myth of Brexiteers - the idea that 'bonkers bureaucrats' in Brussels banned bendy bananas. [Thread]
The idea that unfettered Eurocrats just would enact crazy, arbitrary laws took hold in the British imagination. It became one of these narratives that are so powerful that they are hard to refute with facts.
Nobody became as good at telling these types of stories as Boris Johnson. He used the 'bendy banana' tale to justify his vote for Leave in the Brexit referendum.
British tabloids are still pushing this story to this day.
Of course, the press and the EU Commission have been trying their hands at rebuttals for the past decades. The Commission even launched a 'Euromyth' website with more than 400 de-bunking pieces. To no avail.
To be fair - yes, the EU really has a Regulation on bananas, which bans bananas with 'abnormal curvature of the fingers' from sale in certain trade categories. But the really interesting question is - how did this law come about?
Through FOI requests with the Commission I was able to unearth the documents on the negotiations that led to the banana law.
tl;dr - it was lobbyists and member states rather than 'bonkers bureaucrats' that banned bendy bananas.
An obscure lobby group called European Community Banana Trade Association alone wrote more than half a dozen letters that survive in the Commission archives.
It was lobbyists asking for the law, and lobbyists helped write it.
Moreover, member states such as France pushed for this law. The French sent a copy of their 1975 banana law to Brussels, which is eerily similar in wording to the 1994 EU law.
The only country strongly opposed was the UK (in very Sir Humphrey-ish prose). But whatever the British objections were, they were only brought behind closed doors. Council positions then as now are a closely guarded secret.
In the end, nobody reported on *how* or *why* this law came about. Instead, British journalists kept doing one story after another about the next 'crazy' EU law, about how 'Brussels' would ban prawn-flavoured crisps and mince pie. And guess who wrote some of these stories?
Anyway, prolly 26 years to late, but here is my definitive take on how Brussels worked out the kinks of banana law. euobserver.com/news/149607
Senior EU Commission officials say that Corona tracing apps will be interoperable from October 17 onward, with the German and Italian apps being among the first to connect to new European gateway. Other countries will join in the following days. #ContactTracing
According to Commission tally 18 EU member states have apps, but not all can be included - French app uses centralised system which can not easily be integrated into European framework. They are working on a solution, the officials say. But unclear how that could work.
Also out of the frame are the UK and Switzerland. To include either into the app framework there would have to be bespoke legal arrangements that are tricky to put in place.
EU parliamentarian @SophieintVeld is rightly exasperated about the Commission refusing to properly answer questions on use of facial recognition by police forces. "The Commission is doing bugger-all about it. (...) This is not a democratic procedure!" #LIBE
LIBE chair @JFLopezAguilar agrees that the quality of replies by the Commission to written inquiries by parliament is very poor, "absolutely unacceptable". The Commission can not just copy-paste legal situation, but must address the political nature of the questions.
The complaint is seconded by @BirgitSippelMEP and @echo_pbreyer. LIBE chair indicates it is open to writing formal letter to Commission demanding proper answers to questions. I guess this will find deep echo in large parts of the EP.
On this day 11 years ago, the European Commission promised a unified charger for all smartphones. This never happened. Here is the reason why. #commoncharger
(THREAD)
Back in 2009, Commissioner Verheugen got the major mobile manufacturers in the room and made them promise to unify the hodgepodge of charging plugs that previously had made it impossible to use chargers made for other devices.
The EU's initiative had some success - almost all Android devices shifted to micro-USB, which still is today the de-facto standard for inexpensive devices.
After two years of investigation, the Irish data protection authority has readied two draft decisions on Big Tech cases, it tells netzpolitik.org, investigating Twitter data breach and WhatsApp/Facebook data sharing. Now it well send this to discuss in @EU_EDPB. Release:
In the past few months, the Irish DPC faced criticism for acting slowly on a number of key cases involving Facebook, Google and other giants. Now at least two investigations are moving to an unprecedented new phase - decision made jointly by European data protection authorities.
The cases, once concluded, could mean massive fines for the companies involved of up to 4 per cent of their global revenue. In the case of Google, that would mean billions of euros. Moreover, the rulings will create a mould for future decisions by data protection authorities.
Letter on the Digital Services Act by 9 countries including Ireland, Finland, Sweden, Estonia and the Netherlands -
the "pro-tech coalition" (D9+). They call for EU-wide notice-and-takedown procedure and offer a guarded comments on competition overhaul. gov.pl/attachment/880…
This is a timely intervention by a group of states that profit from a booming tech industry, be it Ireland as coporate base for companies such as Facebook or Sweden with its Spotify, as well as start-up-loving Estonia and tax-management-accomodating Luxembourg and NL.
Noteworthy how much of the letter is focussed on the eCommerce Directive overhaul which is part of the DSA, especially liability exemption. This reflects a worry in the tech industry that liability changes could make them a lot more vulnerable to legal action.
News from the EU's Terrorist Content Regulation. Despite Corona, the Commission is pushing for online trilogues. The aim is to get platforms to remove 'terrorist' content within one hour or face steep fines.
Civil society warns parts are deeply problematic. A joint letter by NGOs recently reminded member states the new law "must respect fundamental rights and freedoms, the constitutional traditions of the Member States and existing Union law in this area." edri.org/wp-content/upl…
Interestingly, a parliament draft document warns that the institutions don't have the necessary tools for secure communication among each other. Hence trilogue negotiations should be postponed until physical meetings are possible.