Despite the UK having representatives in the European Economic Community (as it was called then) since joining in 1973, it was only in 1979 that they were democratically elected. Prior to that they were appointed by national MPs.

One of the consequences of this overdue shift towards people power was that an element of politics suddenly entered the whole staid process. And one particular area of politics that wasn’t slow in raising its head was gay rights.

In 1981 the European Court of Human Rights heard the case of Dudgeon v UK. This led to the ruling that Northern Ireland’s sustained criminalising of homosexuality was in breach of Section 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights. In consequence, Britain’s 1967 Sexual Offences Act was finally implemented in Northern Ireland.

But this case was only an indication of bigger things to come. In that same year a sustained lobby of the Council of Europe’s Assembly by the International Gay and Lesbian Association also began to produce results. Possibly swayed by the European Court taking the lead against discrimination in criminal law, European Parliamentarians tried to tackle discrimination in employment.

Their first attempt, in the form of a detailed gay rights resolution in 1981, was passed by the members of the Assembly. Then it was passed up to the Assembly’s Council of Ministers – and was never heard of again.

Perhaps it was this first indication of the innate conservatism of Eurocracy’s upper echelons that brought a more considered and detailed response. The Committee on Social Affairs for the European Parliament began an investigation into ‘Sexual Discrimination at the Working Place’. This culminated in The Squarcialupi Report – a detailed report and set of recommendations on establishing equal rights for homosexuals in all member states.

It called for the abolition of all legal restrictions against consenting adult homosexual relationships; the introduction of equal ages of consent for homosexuals and heterosexuals; the outlawing of workplace discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation; and an end to the classification of homosexuality as a mental illness.

These proposals were incorporated into a resolution and put to the vote in the Assembly. The resolution was not without its opponents: the UK Conservatives voted against the measure and the Irish Christian Democrats abstained on the grounds that...”The EEC has no competence to decide the moral patterns of society or the pattern of criminal laws in the Member States.” (It was, however, fine for the Pope to do that!)

Conservatives and Christians notwithstanding, the resolution was carried overwhelmingly – then again faced passage up to the Council of Ministers.

Social Affairs Commissioner Iver Richard initially made positive noises about it, arguing that there was no doubt that such measures were needed. Then he said that there were “significant practical, legal and political problems” to consider and that there was no specific European Treaty agreement authorising action on behalf of homosexuals.

Then he acknowledged that Article 235 of the Treaty could be used for this purpose, since it had already been used as the basis for the 1976 Equal Treatment Directive.

But his final word on the matter was that he could not see the matter being acceptable to the Council of Ministers “at least in the immediate future”. In consequence he didn’t even bother to prepare draft legislation to support the proposal.

The issue was lost and the same pattern was played out repeatedly over the next decade or so. Legislation, resolutions and proposals were approved by the Assembly – then lost when they entered the void that was the Council of Ministers.