It has been the practice of art galleries in Ireland to keep the very identity of purchasers secret from the artists that the gallery “represents”.

Now as a consequence of Directive 2001/84EC and The European Communities (Artist’s Resale Right) Regulations (SI 312 of 2006), we artists are entitled to information from the gallery which will enable us to enforce our claims for a percentage of any money generated on a resale of our work.

I must urgently write to my gallery for the names and addresses of my buyers.

(For reasons currently unknown to me I am unable to link to SI 312 of 2006 because Statutory Instruments for 2006 are missing from the website of the Attorney General and BAILII).

NOTE for naive artists; terms and conditions apply

Neither Minister noticed, as Advocate-General Bot now says, that he was attending a Community institution, as opposed to a Union institution.

Each had, of course, read the draft Directive (presumably) and there they saw it was replete with material proper to the Union (and not the Community). It was, in short all about “police and judicial cooperation in criminal matters”. It was expressly proposed by Charles Clarke in the light of the London bombings.
Terrorism, no less.
No common market in terrorism, then.
Right, definitely a matter for Title VI of the EU Treaty.
No, said the Commission Staff. It’s all about a level playing field in the world of commerce.

Ireland and Slovakia have a vote, but not a veto. Done and dusted, then.

What-ho, Advocate-General Bot says the same.

In fact, Directive 2006/24/EC is all about facilitating surveillance by Member governments through the telecoms system. It places a burden on the telecoms and that burden has a cost. But any police activity has a cost, and nobody has yet tried to argue that the cost of a social issue renders it an economic issue.

Bot and the Commission define things by their form, not their substance.

A small state in the EU has no veto if the Commission wishes to deny it a veto.

An institution that loses integrity is a lost cause. When the current Commission is gone from office matters like this will surface and destroy its successor.

The Irish Government says this cannot happen: Ireland has a veto and will use it, therefore the Irish position is safe.

Mr. Barroso has made placatory noises on the same issue. (In fact he has started the process of undermining the Irish “veto”).

What is the reality?

It is to be found in the occasion when Ireland used its veto and was ignored.

This happened on 15th March 2006. The issue was the adoption by the Council of Ministers of what became Directive 2006/24/EC. Ireland voted against its adoption, casting a veto thereby. Ireland’s veto was effective if, as was Ireland’s view, the issue fell within “the 3rd Pillar�?. Otherwise it was not.

The issue was driven by Charles Clarke, the UK minister. His brief in the UK was police and security. He tied the issue to the bombing of London. Issues such as that are 3rd Pillar issues. The Council adopted the proposal as a 1st Pillar issue, basing it on Article 95 of the EC Treaty. Ireland disagrees with this and its opinion is shared by the European Data Protection Supervisor.

Ireland has challenged the legal base for the adoption of Directive 2006/24/EC in the European Court of Justice. The case is pending. If Ireland is successful the Directive will be struck down.

(Mr. Barroso was president of the Commission in 2006).

Surely tax is more important than privacy?

Wrong question.

In 2006 the question was, is Ireland more important than the UK?

Now the question is, is Ireland more important than France?

Words matter.

Mr. Barroso’s definition of a veto is not a veto in Europe. Therefore it is not a veto.

I do not think anyone ever defined “3rd Pillar” and we now see the consequences of allowing woolly speech where precision was required.