Brussels Commentary
Employment Committee March17th - 18th 2014
This should have been a two day
meeting, as it usually is, but it was cut down to just Tuesday
morning. With the cancellation of the meeting scheduled for March
26th & 27th it makes the extra meeting held on Monday 10th March
even more strange. As earlier reported that was from 7.00 pm at the
start of a Strasbourg week when committees are not supposed to be
held. So I rushed to get there, just in time to vote, when it could
have been done in good order today.
However, a further comment about due
process. Many of the votes in committee are by show of hands, with an
electronic check if the President is not sure. The final vote, to
approve or not, is always electronic. Each political group has a
specific number of MEPs on each committee in proportion to total
group numbers and, at the start today, the President took a check. We
all pressed a key, revealing that both the Lib-Dems and the EPP each
had one too many. One of each then withdrew their voting card from
the machine but, in voting for various amendments, the same extra
numbers re-appeared. Apparently, someone had defected from the
Lib-Dems to the EPP, causing the problem. That is unusual but extra
numbers have appeared before. This is easily corrected in electronic
votes but what about a show of hands vote, ie the majority of votes?
True, the President checks electronically if not sure, and MEPs call
for checks, but I can't help thinking that sometimes a report goes
through against MEP's intentions. Not a good way to make laws
affecting all of us.
In the votes yet more money was gifted
in the "Globalisation Adjustment Fund" for firms
re-locating outside the EU. Much worse was a vote on giving the
Commission authority to spend money from the, "European Aid Fund
for the Most Deprived". That's not in the third world, that's
deprived people in the EU. So they foul up the economies of Europe
with their crazy Euro currency and then give the Commission a blank
cheque to spend on the disadvantaged Europeans they created, without
having to clear it with anyone!
I enjoyed the last vote where they are
getting excited about the rights of Seafarers. The rapporteur, Licia
Ronzulli, from Italy, took on the President, the formidable Pervenche
Beres, a French Socialist. Ms Ronzulli complained that the president
had mis-represented parts of the case. Never in the last five years
have I heard anyone do that. About a year ago, after a debate in
Plenary, the Commission indicated they would not accept the vote by
Parliament to adopt a report sponsored by the Employment Committee. I
asked her what she would do if the Commission maintained their
position. This very positive lady's response was, "I shall take
them to Court!"
However, back to today's Seafarers. Ms
Ronzulli's further comments indicated that she herself, although the
rapporteur, would not support this report, making a series of pungent
points. This was opposed by a Spanish MEP, Ms Barandica, who argued
the case for vehemently. Other MEPs took part, several raised voices
at the same time, a committee divided as never before.
This was unfortunate for I had intended
to speak. One of the results of this report would be that Ships
approaching a foreign port would be required to fly the flag of the
country whose harbour they were about to enter. But that is already
done by way of ancient custom and as a courtesy. Why enforce that
which is already happening and deny ship's Captains the courtesy of
the seas?
On the other hand is the second
objection to this proposal. This is that owners are to be given the
right to sack ship's crew when they get to a foreign port. That too
is an ancient custom but one which, I think, should be abolished, not
cemented in law. How would anyone feel on being dumped in a strange
place without a job, even in these days of seamen's institutes?
So, they propose to endorse the
unacceptable but enforce that which needs no help. They have it all
the wrong way round. I was going to speak accordingly but thought
better of it as the bust-up got going. I did not want to distract
from the row going on, still less did I want to give them a common
enemy, that might have united them. So, my departure from the
Employment Committee was silently to encourage discord rather than
deliver a modest contribution of my own. After all, what do most of
them know of ships, compared to one whose childhood playground was
the Bristol docks.
Ah well, see you in a street somewhere
soon, with an armful of leaflets.
Derek Clark MEP Strasbourg March
18th 2014
