Strasbourg Commentary Plenary Session March 12- 15 2012

Strasbourg Commentary          Plenary Session                      March 12- 15 2012

I can do no better than start with Nigel's speech in the style of "Carry on up the Khyber". It does in fact mirror the atmosphere here.

Tuesday We voted on two Gender Equality reports, all 70 amendments in one, 30 in the other. Basic idea worthy enough you may think but really, paragraph 7, " Political Parties across Europe to introduce a quota system for Candidate lists- women candidates alternate with men at the top of the list".  Adopted by 573 - 101, and the whole report passed by 508 - 124.

Wednesday Vote on the Fisheries Fund, to which I spoke on Tuesday night, text and video on web site. This passed with a huge majority. If you burrow into the EU web site you can find the result of recorded votes, this being one of them. It lists who voted Yes, or No, or Abstained, by Political group. Activists look these up to find out how we, and others, voted on their particular interest. Quite right too but there are errors. In this case you would find that I did not vote at all on the Fisheries Fund report; you are entitled to know why.  

We hold our voting meeting immediately prior to each voting session and bells sound to call us down, 10 minutes before, and again at the start. Problem, the lifts are heavily in use then, often with assistants going some where else, so it's slow. I got into the chamber, with quite a few other MEPs just in time, but not quite. There was a minute's silence being held for the Belgian children killed in the bus crash in Switzerland, so I stood still in the approach to my row. The president did not wait but got straight on with voting before several of us could get to our seats and put our vote cards into the machine. The Fisheries vote was first, so I missed it. All an alert president had to do was to realise members were observing due respect and wait a minute, but that's too much for any one in charge in this place.

I give you this account to show how completely hopeless this place is, common sense is at a premium. And yes, you can do something about a voting error. We can go to the web site and enter a "Vote Correction", specifying the exact vote and the way one wished to vote. This is noted but the vote as first recorded is not altered.  

Thursday Votes are of little interest to any of us and business generally is of limited value.

I will therefore close at this point, Weds evening, especially as my flight is soon after voting ends, leaving me no time to write anything further. I look forward (!) to my lunch with the assembled lawyers of Northampton on Friday.

Derek Clark  MEP                                        Strasbourg  March 14th 2012 

Speech to Parliament March 13th 2012 European Fisheries Fund

Speech to Parliament                                  March 13th 2012

European Fisheries Fund

The EFF has 4.3 billion Euros to spend on fishing over the period 2007 - 2013, covering scrapping of fishing vessels, aquaculture and inland fishing, sustainability and administration of the fund.

But fishing managed very well before the CFP was introduced; livings were made and fish was plentiful.

Since its inception in 1973, the CFP has introduced rules and regs to control fishing, now the EFF. Why, after allfishermen have been plying their trade for centuries without all this, and a viable industry has been passed down the generations. Fishermen are not stupid, they have looked after their stocks, just as a farmer looks after his livestock and land.

This proposal, of course, is a backdoor way of giving extra financial support to countries which have been bailed out. Bail out funds under EFSM will trigger this extra support from the EFF,- and yet more taxpayersmoney goes down the drain.

So this whole scheme, purporting to help fishing with more funds, is really an addition to bailouts, which aresupposed to be loans by way of bond issues with time limits for repayment. Does that mean that the extra EFF money will not be included in Bail out repayments? Does it mean that cash will be available without issuing bonds?

If so, EFF funding will be a gift to offset a debt. What kind of finance is that?    

Derek Clark  MEP                                                 13th March 2012

(Tuesday is Gadfly Dinner evening. Left restaurant at 9.00 pm, delivered speech at 9.45 pm, returned at 10.00 pm, to receive a certain amount of banter from colleagues who at least had the grace not to have consumed my first course)

Strasbourg Commentary Plenary Session 13th - 16th Feb 2012

Strasbourg Commentary             Plenary Session          13th - 16th Feb 2012

There is only one topic of note this week, the Euro, but before that just two votes of note, illustrating the continued arrogance of these people.

On Tuesday a vote showing that it is not only Boston Fishermen who are at the mercy of the CFP, in its wider sense. The Haglund report was voted in by 628 - 22 which is about renewal of fishing agreements with yet another third world country, Guinea-Bissau. This will allow European fishing fleets to go on plundering the waters of this West African country. The fleets in question are those of Spain, Italy, Greece, Portugal and France. As always they will out-fish the locals andreduce fish stocks to dangerously low levels. By the way, on one of my recent visits to the Eastern Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Agency to try to help Boston Fishermen I remarked that the shortage of fish in UK waters was due to over fishing, primarily by fleets from Spain and France. That went down very badly with the officials of EIFCA!

On Wednesday a vote on a report on Constitutional Affairs. This was to restrict the number of RCV votes on "Own Initiative" reports; the equivalent of a private members bill in the Commons. Little notice is taken of them. An RCV vote is one where we vote electronically. The point is that all RCVs are then on record and can be accessed from the Parliament website. Special interest groups do exactly that and can come on to us querying why we voted the way we did. Perfectly proper. But, this is probably the thin end of a wedge, where restricting the number of RCVs on own initiative reports could well extend to reports of much more importance; and a lack of transparency. I think British people have the right to know how I voted, especially on important issues.

But, already this week, we have seen the attitude of the new president, Martin Schultz, spreading down to Vice- Presidents. In his speech Stuart Agnew remarked that thepolicy in question was illegal and incoherent while the Commissioner was stupid, only to be corrected, can't call a Commissioner stupid, apparently.

On Wednesday afternoon we were treated to an address by Mario Monti the new, unelected, Premier of Italy, all 28 minutes of it. Totally boring, all the usual phrases, promises, but no real indication of actual action, except that we need discipline. Interestingly several lead speakers of the left were opposed to the "Troika" now running Greece and Italy and one actually said that ideology will destroy the EU! The EFD speaker was the co-chairman, Francisco Speroni. Be not surprised to hear that he was cut off when going beyond his allocated 2 minutes by a few seconds but that earlier speakers, who had more time in the first place, ran over by a minute or more. Schultz was in the chair.      

Monti illustrated the EU leadership's arrogant attitude. Its more than arrogance of course, they are in denial, they just do not believe that they are unable to mend the economies of the poorer southern countries and preserve the Euro. Just keep throwing money at it and install dictators if the elected Premiers and Governments do not toe the line. Meanwhile you will all have seen some of the action from Athens last Sunday and will have been looking for Nigel to comment.

A while ago I received an email from one of our members complaining that he had seen a video clip by Dan Hannan, which was very good, but why did we not get something from Nigel?  We have all done clips for TV, including me, and you may have seen them on U Tube, but they receive no coverage on national TV. This complainant does not seem to understand that we do not control the airwaves in this country. Foreign broadcasting is a different story. I did 5 minutes for an American radio show which was well received. I once made the front page of the leading Amsterdam newspaper. Even national leaders often go abroad to speak on Britain.

So please see below the links for Nigel's contribution to the debate on the Euro crisis. You will notice that these do not come from UK broadcasters but I hope you appreciate the stand that Nigel takes.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=noWfSYRfUMA&list=UUpwvZwUam-URkxB7g4USKpg&index=1&feature=plcp

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7y45ORzRdI

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bJZeZ6L6aNY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjYk6_h_7dE

Derek Clark  MEP                                                Strasbourg 16 Feb 2012

Speech to Parliament Feb 15

Speech to Parliament             15th Feb 2012
 
 
 
With the Greek and Italian Debt crisis under the burden of the Euro of course unemployment is rising. Spain has over 40% youth unemployment, and you want more Europe!
 
Employment policies should be to cut regulations, by half at least, as the target for 2020, instead of which you propose more legislation.
 
If you want growth and jobs stop promoting the failed Euro. look, what is has done to Greece. Set them, and others free, free to reorganise their own currency and to set their own interest rates.
 
Remember Euro forerunner, the ERM? My country was in that project, interest rates rose and so did unemployment. Finally interest rates went up to 15%, totally unsustainable, but at least the government came to its senses and withdrew from the ERM. That was on "BlackWednesday" in 1992, but it should be remembered as Freedom Wednesday, for interest rates fell, employment gradually recovered and we entered a period of increasing economic growth.
 
That' the model you want.
 
 
 
Derek Clark    MEP                                       Brussels 15th Feb 2012

Brussels Commentary Plenary session 1st -2nd Feb 2012

Brussels Commentary               Plenary session     1st -2nd Feb 2012

The major debate this week was on the new so-called Treaty to resolve the financial crisis. According to Von Rompuy and Barroso its just one element in EU Government reforms, everyone needs more discipline, more responsibility and the system must have compliance regulations. It will be a compact treaty and will be irrevocable!

Only came about because there was no unanimity first time round (but Czech republic seem to have joined us)  so it is as close as possible to existing treaties. Again the Community method was endorsed but at least the call for less red tape to help SMEs to survive was heard again (but will have as much effect as the first time this was mentioned).

All the usual comments about stability, youth employment....

By now you may have caught the two videos featuring Nigel. The first is his speech the second is of a blue card question to him and includes the entirely improper comments by Schultz. The rules clearly state that the President may sum up but not offer an opinion. Should he/ she wish to do so they must vacate the chair.

We had another taste of the Schultz method in voting today. The report on Sport in the EU (which includes the issue of EU logos on national team shirts!) had 22 RCV (Roll call votes). Schultz took 8 of these then said that all the others should be taken together. Uproar. The point is that anyone can look up the result of these RCVs on the Parliament web site and see how any MEP voted. ButMEPs would very likely want to vote yes to some no to others, so how do they explain to constituents why they voted the wrong way on certain amendments?  

All to no purpose, it went ahead under the Schultz steamroller. Taking the hint Gerard asked if all the votes on the next report could  be blocked together also,- there were no RCVs in it. Got no response at all!

I'll finish on a more cheerful note. The vote on the Duff report was taken in Constitutional Affairs last week This is the proposition to elect 25 MEPs on the proposed European Political Parties, which was debated, and voted on, in UKIP recently. It fell!! That is, it was 11 - 11 which means it was not adopted, it falls. Do not bother to put out the flags just yet. It will go on the shelf, ready to be taken down, dusted off and re-presented one day, under a new name, of course!

Derek Clark   MEP                                Brussels Feb 2nd 2012 

How Croatia voted its independence away

Brussels Commentary         Employment Committee     25th Jan 2012

Short visit but spoke this afternoon on MRI scanning again, on website soonest. Meanwhile an account on how Croatia voted their independence away last Sunday

Croats victims of EU Referendum swindle - Only Croatia Party.

Contrary to official claims, the Croatian people did not overwhelmingly support Croatia's membership of the European Union.

In fact, most Croats abstained from the EU referendum resulting in a record low participation level of only 43%, which means that even if  all those who turned out, voted in favour of EU membership, they would still constitute a minority not only of voters, but of the Croatian people.

At the first-ever referendum held in Croatia in 1991, the turnout was 83.5%, of which 94% voted in favour of independence.

Fully aware that the Croatian People do not want to give up their hard earned independence, the ruling elites changed the Croatian Constitution prior to the EU referendum to eliminate the rule which invalidated any referendum unless 50 percent participation was achieved.

Prior to the EU referendum, the Croatian people were subjected to a massive North Korea-style pro–EU propaganda campaign, which relentlessly extolled the benefits and virtues of

membership, and denigrated any attempts to say otherwise.

The Government spent huge amounts of public funds to pay for a massive YES campaign, whilst denying any funding to the NO case. In addition, the European Commision ran its own very expensive YES campaign. State enterprises and corporations were also enlisted. State Television aired pro-EU adverts for free or at discounted rates, Croatia Post home delivered more than 2 million government leaflets for free, and the City of Zagreb provided free EU advertising on its trams.

The official referendum campaign was restricted to a four week period at the height of winter and favoured the official YES case which had almost exclusive access to the electronic media. It also exploited seasonal distractions provided by Christmas and New Year celebrations as well as winter school holidays.

The real referendum campaign had actually started much much earlier and involved, not thousands, but tens of thousands,  pro-EU advertisements on radio and Television.

The 'Vecernji List' daily reported on 10.8.2011 that the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and EU Integrations had in the two preceeding months (June and July 2011) paid the broadcasting of  more than 13 thousand radio adverts and more than 2300 TV adverts on 80 radio stations, 6 national and 15 local TV stations. This massive propaganda campaign continued and even increased in scope and intensity over the next six months leading up to the referendum.

The Austrian, German and Government-owned electronic and print media ( ie all the media in Croatia) blatantly supported the YES case and made sure that the YES campaign was the only campaign.   Hundreds of sponsored 'information programs' were aired over many months and even more 'informative' newspaper articles were printed.

The Catholic Church hierarchy, lavishly funded by the State, also openly supported the YES case and seemed unconcerned that there was no democratic public debate and no visible NO case.

In the last few weeks, the population was carpet-bombed by advertisements and appeals on TV, radio and the print media from the President, Prime Minister, Opposition Leader,   Ministers, Actors, Singers and Sportsmen to choose EU prosperity and happiness over isolation and poverty.

Just days before the referendum, Foreign minister Vesna Pusić shamelessly threatened Croatia's 1.2 million pensioners that they would lose their pensions if they voted against EU membership. The Zvijezda voting station in Zagreb, which covers several retirement homes with about 1100 pensioners, reported an 80 percent vote in favour of EU membership.

And the result of this massive propaganda campaign ? -A referendum turnout of only 43% of  all voters and a vote of 66% in favour of EU membership and 33% against.

And even this vote is somewhat suspect because Croatia has more voters than citizens. According to the latest 2011 Population Census, Croatia has a total population of only 4.29 million, yet according to the Electoral Commission it has 4,504,765 voters over 18 years of age eligible to vote.

In such blatantly undemocratic circumstances, it was impossible for the Croatian People to make an informed decision and the EU referendum therefore has no democratic legitimacy. It has all the hallmarks of a sham.

It is clear that the EU referendum in Croatia was a swindle which did not meet even the most basic democratic criteria, and whose sole purpose was to elicit an affirmative vote.

We call on the Croatian Government and the political elites to recognise the reality that the Croatian People have not freely and democratically given their consent to the loss of their independence.

We call on the Croatian Government to do the right thing, to annul this sham referendum, to organise a new, fair and democratic referendum, and to give the Croatian People the opportunity to make a free and informed decision about their future.   

Should this not happen, we ask all the democratically minded Peoples of existing EU members not to participate in this undemocratic swindle of the Croatian People. We ask them and their National Parliaments to block the ratification of Croatia's membership of the EU, until such time as the Croatian People are given the right to decide freely at a fair, democratic and legitimate referendum.

Marjan Bošnjak

Secretary -   Only Croatia

Brussels Commentary Plenary Session 16th - 19th Jan 2012

A strange week with Monday and Tuesday taken up with voting for the next President of Parliament, vice Presidents and ....
As expected, or rather ordained, Martin Schultz the German leader of the S & D group won with 387 votes to 142 for Nirj Deva, Tory South East and 141 for Diana Wallis, Lib Dem Yorkshire. This is a much smaller majority than for previous incumbents.
In his acceptance speech Schultz said he was a President for all the MEPs..... wants the community method to become the norm.... but actually commented that failure of the EU was possibility. To most that was a warning, to us a happy new year.
The outstanding issue this week was the appearance of the Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orban. This was by special request of the Parliament in order to query him over alleged malpractice under his government. You will get a flavour of his reception from this press extract,-
"Orban in EP: Desperate for a European rescue, Hungary offers an olive branch  (The Times, p.35): "Hungary's conservative Prime Minister bowed yesterday to European pressure and promised to revise laws deemed to breach EU rules on democratic governance. But Viktor Orbán remained defiant over his mission to reshape his nation. In a stormy session of the European Parliament, Mr Orbán backed down on parts of his new constitution that became the subject of infringement litigation by the European Commission this week. These cover curbs on the independence of the Hungarian National Bank, the early retirement of judges and supervision of the country's data protection authority. (...) Daniel Cohn-Bendit, the Franco-German leader of the big Green group, told Mr Orbán that he was taking the path of "all the totalitarian regimes" and compared him with Venezuela's President Chávez and Cuba's Fidel Castro. To widespread applause, he proposed sending a parliamentary mission to "find out why the homeless in Hungary, the intellectuals, people from my family ... Jews in Hungary, are afraid today." Guy Verhofstadt, leader of the Liberal group and a former Belgian Prime Minister, said that the Commission had "missed the broader picture" by focusing on legal issues."

President Orban did not seem desperate to be rescued by the EU and he did not back down in the way suggested.  He maintained impassive throughout a 2/3 hour grilling, with many MEPs putting an oar in. He gave no ground and refused to answer the many individual points raised, good job too, we'd still be there.

This extract does not indicate the hostile and vindictive attitude of so many of the leading MEPs; especially Verhofstadt, they were just plain nasty. I do not know how many of their allegations are justified but I do know this; these MEPs are not qualified to assault him in the way they did. To clarify, he is a conservative, so no prizes for guessing whence came the worst attacks. Parliament should be above party politics when receiving a democratically elected Head of State. Consider;-
A month ago an MEP of the NGL (Nordic Green Left) complained that Parliament was becoming more and more anti- communist.
Cohn-Bendit's contribution noted above is typical of one who, two years ago, insulted the Czech President, Vaclav Klaus, who had spoken out against the EU in Parliament. The resulting delegation to the Czech Republic included Cohn-Bendit and met in Prague castle, the official residence of the Czech President. Cohn-Bendit actually told Klaus that he should take down the Czech flag above the Castle and replace it with the Euro flag!
Ms Harms, Greens, told the House a year ago that Vaclav Klaus was a trouble maker!
Orban was defended by several Hungarian MEPs and, especially, by Zbigniev Ziobro, one of four Polish MEPs to have joined us in EFD this week.
                  *************************