The bill for the EU will rise to £50 million a day

Here is Marta Andresen pointing out in pretty simple language what is going on with the EU budget this year.

What is astonishing in this time of economic difficulties is that the Council of Ministers asked for a 3% rise. The European Commission asked for a 4% rise, but the European Parliament, that circus of rectitude, has asked for and voted for a 10% rise. Which as Marta points out would push the daily cost of the EU up to a staggering £50 million a day.

The author of the report, one László Surján, a so called centre right politician from Hungary overules our doubts.

"He said the €120.5 billion suggested by council was not sufficient and that the figure put forward by parliament offers a "global solution" to all member states to cope with the downturn.

He said, "The budget for 2010 needs to be the answer to solving the economic crisis and to re-launching the European economy. Therefore, more money is needed, while respecting the principal of value for money."

Dare I said he would wouldn't he. After all his country Hungary are net recipients from the EU budget, recieving according to the European Commission figures for 2007, a mere 1.6 billion euros. What it is getting now with the downturn is anybodies guess

I am, yet again reminded of that great old saw of Milton Friedman's,

There are four ways in which you can spend money. You can spend your own money on yourself. When you do that, why then you really watch out what you’re doing, and you try to get the most for your money. Then you can spend your own money on somebody else. For example, I buy a birthday present for someone. Well, then I’m not so careful about the content of the present, but I’m very careful about the cost. Then, I can spend somebody else’s money on myself. And if I spend somebody else’s money on myself, then I’m sure going to have a good lunch! Finally, I can spend somebody else’s money on somebody else. And if I spend somebody else’s money on somebody else, I’m not concerned about how much it is, and I’m not concerned about what I get.

Sort of sums up the Parliament's position.

Governors barred from Westminster

The little saga of Hariet Harperson and her tropes barring access to the Houses of Parliament to the 72 MEPs in order to block vists by the BNP to Westminster is of course ridiculous.

Unpleasantly socialist they may be, unapologetically racist they are, but to suggest that overcrowding is the reason is risible. Refusal to accept the verdict ofthe electorate more like.

Of course Westminster was happy to have the Sinn Fein MEP visit last time, an unapologetic suporter of the IRA. It also seemed happy to give office space to Mr Adams and his party workers, all of whom would no doubt pass all security checks with flying colours.

However what is ironic of course is that, aprt from one or two Cabinet Ministers, MEPs have more real power to effect legislation than MPs. So why would they want to visit Westminster? It would be the political equivalent of slumming it.

Schulz wants all the pies

Martin Schulz, the leader of the socialists in the European Assembly has proven that he too is suffering from a delusions. According to the FAZ he is to be the SPD candidate to replace the outgoing German Commissioner, Günter Verheugen.

OK fine (though the CDU are rather down on the idea, Verheugen is a socialist and they think it is there tuen, particularly with Merkle as Chancellor). But Schulz wants to be Commissioner for only half the term, stopping after 2 1/2 yaers and standing down.

Why, because he also wants to become President of the European Parliament, but recognising that the electoral mathematics - and the back room deals of the EP presidential elections will most probably give the first half to the EPP. Thus his chance comes half way through the Parliamentary term.

But what this would mean in practice is, first he gets elected in June, then he stands down allowing somebody else to become an MEP from the autumn when the Commissioners are finalised, sit as a Commissioner for 2 1/2 years, then resign as Commissioner, order that one of the SpD MEPs be fired, resume his seat and get appointed President of Parliament for the second half of the term.

See what I mean... deluded.

Worse given this is a man who would lose his temper and start shouting and waving his hands about before he had finished reading the entrees on a menu, anybody who dares suggest that he is out of his tree is liable to be screamed at, I doubt that any of his advisors will have the brass balls to even disabuse him of the idea.

Picture CTK Agency

Everybody be cool! This is a robbery.

News just in

The ING bank in the Spaak building of the European Parliament has just been robbed. Apparently somebody just walked through security, wandered uinto the bank, threatened the staff (with what we do not know) demanded they hand over the cash. The cashier did. The thief then calmly picked it up and walked out off the building.

The Parliament security then dashed round the PHS building demanding that everybody lock themselves into their offices.

Me I think it was Tom Wise or Giles Chichester getting lost on their way to the expenses office, but I could be wrong.

Nigel Farage's response was this,

"Though delighted to hear that nobody was hurt during today's robbery, I suppose the Parliament might now understand how the British people feel".

He went on, "A day after the who EU institutional structure got excited about the prospect of long-legged blonde haired 'Mata Hari's' wandering around the place, a real live crime happened under its very nose. It really doesn't say much for the security system now does it?"

Update

EU Observer is reporting that the felon was wearing a wig and makeup... Nah, I reckon it was a chicken suit

How far can a politician crawl up his own fundament

Apparently all the way. I give you perhaps the most self serving, deluded piece of 'Gosh. Aren't I wonderful' drivel that I have seen in all my time in Brussels. It even beats Nirj's "I survived the Tsunami, so don't worry", presser from a few years back.

Here is the Slovenian EPP MEP, Alojze Peterle and his extraordinary invitation.

Dear colleagues and friends,

At your request, I am going to give a lecture about my recent fasting for a whole month. I have abstained from food and drinks (except for water and fresh orange juice) for the whole month of January 2009.

I would like to share with you my reasons for fasting, the method I used and the results I have achieved from it.

I consider the decision to fast as the best one I have made so far this year. I feel that this experience has given me the important energy and strength I need for the looming European election campaign.

With pleasure, I would like to invite you to my presentation about fasting, on the 18th of February 2009, from 8am to 9am, room: ASP 5H-1.

Looking forward to seeing you there!

With kind regards,

Lojze Peterle MEP
(EPP-ED)

P.S. I kindly ask you to reply to: blocked::mailto:alojz.peterle-assistant3@europarl.europa.eu if you wish to participate.

Alojz PETERLE MEP (EPP-ED)
European Parliament

ASP 5F366
Rue Wiertz 60
B-1047 Brussels
Belgium

Tel: +32 (0)2 28 45638
Fax: +32 (0)2 28 49638
E-mail: blocked::mailto:alojz.peterle@europarl.europa.eu

I would love to know who actually asked him to do this, and whether they were joking.

Self delusion

Reading this on EU Referendum I almost fell off my chair in shock

"His colleague, Paul Heardman (Head of European Parliament Section, UKRep), told us that the Reports were well regarded in the European Parliament".

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA deep breath HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH... clunk

No seriously that has got to be one on the most dishonest comments I have heard in a while.

They are sent round the Brit MEPs I think, most of whom do not read them, but the other 700 odd, don't even know they exist.

Self-serving twaddle from somebody who should know better but is paid to put a rosy glow on reality.

There is more joy in heaven...

...over one sinner who repents,

I fully understand the argument against both excessive hours and exploitation. I just think that working time is not something that should be regulated at EU level.

Sarah Ludford MEP

(ALDE/UK Liberal Democrats)

I am pinching myself this morning having read thios little note. Is this the first time in history that a Lib/Dem has stated publically that something should not be controlled at an EU level. Is this the crack in the dyke?

Or was the good Baroness lobbied like mad by companies and individuals in her constituency. However it happened I can only applaud.

Nothing better to do

We all kow that MEPs are busy little bees. Constantly legislating for our benefit and making the world a happier safer more comfortable place.
So it was no suprise to me when I read in yesterday's Die Welt about this splendid proposal,

No access for prostitutes to hotels used by MEPs

In a letter, 37 MEPs asked Hans-Gert Pöttering, the President of the European Parliament, to curtail the “encouragement of prostitution by members of the EU Parliament”. Every hotel, which is used by MEPs and their staff on business trips, should give a “guarantee statement” that denies access for prostitutes to the rooms. Furthermore, MEPs should be banned from welcoming prostitutes in their hotel rooms. Pöttering’s reply is yet to be seen.

This story I discover had been reported on EU Observer a couple of weeks ago, but I regret to say I missed it at the time. The letter included this particularly fine phrase, it noted the

"praxis of many hotels as providers of sex trade with humans, as if they were dealing with an ordinary commodity."

So is the implication that MEPs should be able to, if they so desire, engage in sex trade with machines, rocks, animals, fruit?

Photo Credit DPA

Interesting (Irish) Times

The results of the TNS Irish Times Poll in this mornings paper has put the cat amongst the pigeons. Giving the Irish No ccampaigners 35% to the Yes side's 30% the poll has caused panic.

It is before 9am here in Brussels and the phones are ringing off the hook. Group and party leaders are in a measure of panic that surprises me as there is the inevitable plan B (for Bollocks).

The Ind/Dem Group has already requested that a debate be held in the European parliament in the week following the Irish result, a request that has hitherto been ignored by the great and the good in the Parliament.

Of course we must remember that the European parliament voted a couple of months ago to ignore the results ofthe Irish referendum. Well we shall see. Put it this way, if there is a no vote, and the Parliament refuses us a debate, then I predict certain disciplinary problems in the chamber.

After all the authorities got upset when a handful of MEPs called for referenda during the signing ceremony for the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

When we held our 'Too chicken to hold a Referendum' protest, people mocked us. This morning all I can see is a headless chicken protest.

Social inadequates to get own social network

The reports in today's papers and yesterday's PM program ( 01:54:00 minutes in, your correspondent is quoted) about the latest wheeze from the EU to 're-connect' citizens with the project have caused a certain amount of disquiet in the Parliament.

MyParl.eu is a shiny new social networking site for politicians. With a name deliberatly mimicking MySpace) it is transparently an attempt to jump on what the EU sees to be a fashionable bandwagon. But like so many things the central authority aspect off it reaveals its inherent flaws. It is ostensibly designed to allow MEPs and national Parliamentarians (and of course selected members of Organised Civil Society) .

The ways in which the whole concept is wrong are legion. Firstly social networking sites exist already. The European Parliament already has a Facebook Group with 650 members - MEPs who are interested in web 2.0 products already have pages on it and MySpace, LinkedIn and so many other websites. And, and this is key, they are free to use and have broad public access. They are classic examples of a bottom up process, driven by the actions of individuals acting in their own interests.

MyParl.eu however is part of the EU's 'Communicating Europe in Partnership' program and is entirely funded by the taxpayer via the European Commission, to the tune of £3 million. One of the team (the contract is held by two significant players in the Euro media market, Mostra Communications and Euractiv.eu) told me,

"We are going to create a bottom up process",

Errr... apart from the fact that that is logically impossible, it is absurd. You cannot create something bottom up, bottom up stuff just happens.

As Bruno Waterfield in the Telegraph puts it,

Despite the use of taxpayers' cash, much of MyParl.eu will not be visible to the public, with its networking "restricted to parliamentarians", The Daily Telegraph has learned.

Only parliamentarians and "civil society", Brussels-speak for officially sanctioned NGOs and trade associations, will be able to use the site for comment and debate. "Myparl.eu offers you a unique online political forum with a social networking tool, enabling you to engage with other parliamentarians across the EU," said the pilot site launched in Brussels on Thursday".

The arrogance of the organisers of this walking disaster make the point,

"After receiving an online demonstration of the website, one Euro-MP's office asked MyParl organisers whether there was a cost for the service. "Totally free. Well, not for the taxpayer of course," was the answer".

Which says it all.

I can just hear Liberty's heartbeat

Further to my post about the attempt to stifle the ability of MEPs to put Parliamentary Questions to the Council and Commission by Richard Corbett I can say that the patient is not quite dead. I spoke to Mr Corbett last night, he was hanging around outside a pub watching the Man U match through the window with a hatted Charles Tannock. The bar staff were considering demanding that they buy a drink or sod off. After all,

"This is a pub, not a TV shop, we pay for the TV, the cable subscription, not for our own benefit, but to increase custom. If people loiter outside like that the police will come by and tell us off for creating a public nuisance, don't those people have the decency to come in and buy a drink if they want to watch the game, or would they feel out of place in a crowd of people who like each other's company?"

Anyhow I had heard that he was minded to drop his amendment that would restrict MEPs to three non-priority questions a month due to some pretty voluble complaints in Committee from the UKIP and other non attached (British) MEPs. Indeed so restricted to the UK members was the complaint that the Committee Chairman, Joe Lienen made a throw away comment , "It's always nice to hear what Brits have to argue amongst themselves - particularly when you don't live in the country" - a not too subtle dig at Corbett's ex-pat existence. It was revealing though of the Continental mindset that the other countries should not involve themselves in what was obviously an internal British matter - MEPs from other countries apparently are happy to chew the cud and restrict their own ability to hold the executive to account

Anyhow I went outside to find out this change of heart was indeed the case. I can report that it is, sort of.

Corbett told me, and I paraphrase,

"Yes I am considering withdrawing the amendment, if the other amendment giving the President (or his designated Vice-President who I understand might have this role as their key task - a sort of Vice-President for access to the high authorities) the power to block what he or she feels are frivolous questions".

He also told me that there are only three or four MEPs who use up this allotment (that is one oral, one priority and three non Priority questions per month). Which is a tosh argument anyway. So if you average out in a year there are only three or four MEPs who ask 60 questions a year. OK, so the workload problem isn't a problem at all then. And anyhow, if a MEP has a slew of issues that come, as they always do, in convoy like London omnibuses, he has to spread the questions out over a number of months, praying that no more issues come along in the meantime.

Then it all became clear. This is all about Killroy-Silk. The former UKIP/Vanitas wandering ego has a novel approach to Parliamentary work. Any letter/email/pigeon post/brain spasm or whatever that lands in his in tray is immediately cut and pasted into a Parliamentary question and pinged off to the tabling office. It doesn't matter if it his driver asking for directions to get to his house in Spain, off goes the PQ. He then feels he can turn round and say, "Look at all the questions I have asked - that proves how hard I am working". The fact that 90% of his questions could be answered by a minute looking on google is neither here nor there. Indeed in Corbett's defence the fact that he wrote 66 questions in February alone rather makes his point, questions like this,

How can the EU ever have a common policy when Member States cannot even agree on recognising Kosovo?

and this,

What steps does the Commission propose to take to make the citizens of Member States identify with the EU, and how much will it cost?

and this,

What is the Commission’s attitude to the racist and violent videos on social websites like youtube?

and over the past 3 1/2 years 1,074 others.

But the point is is that you must not make the rules to deal with a single idiot, you deal with them individually. Tannock backed up Corbett's point, he too didn't think that frivolous questions should be allowed.

But Richard, but Charles, freedom has the downside that people are allowed to be idiots. Is he doing any harm? Not really. He is costing the taxpayer way more than he should, but it is unlikely that he will be back after 2009. Indeed if the general estimate of 2,500 quid per question in admin costs is anything to go by he is a bloody expensive luxury we could do without. Should he have resigned his seat when he left UKIP, yes he should he was elected on a list, and as such when he left the party he should resign the seat, but that is an argument that can be made against all MEPs who jump ship.

I repeat you must not make laws to deal with individuals. Is the system generally being abused? No. Then there is no need to fix it. And this method of fixing is despotic.

Conservative democracy in action

Conservative Home has pointed out the absolute democratic disgrace that was the Tory MEP selection racket. The bare facts say it all. Not only were sitting MEPs given a bye into the top slots, thus ossifying the pro-EPP Tory representation in Brussels but also the preference for women over men for the next spot directed by CCHQ has resulted in a Zimbabwean result pattern.

Here are the anomolies,

In London Marina Yannakoudis was awarded the highest place for non-incumbents although three men - JP Floru, Warwick Lightfoot and Bob Seely - all won more support from the grassroots.

In the South East Therese Coffey and Sarah Richardson beat all men in the voting.

In the Eastern region Vicky Ford was awarded the highest place for non-incumbents even though John Flack won more support from members.

In the East Midlands Emma McClarkin was awarded second place even though Rupert Matthews received a better vote from members.

In the West Midlands Anthea McIntyre finished ahead of all men in terms of grassroots support.

In Yorkshire and the Humber Fleur Butler was ranked ahead of Matthew Bean and Nick Burrows although they both received more support from the grassroots.

In the North East Barbara Musgrave was awarded second place although Richard Bell enjoyed more support.

In the North West Jacqueline Foster and Fiona Bruce won more support than any of the non-incumbent men in the selection. Fiona Bruce has apparently dropped out after very narrowly finishing behind Jacqueline Foster.

In the South West Julie Girling received slightly less support than Ashley Fox but was ranked above him.

In Wales Dr Kay Swinburne was awarded top place although Evan Price won more support from the grassroots.

In Scotland Belinda Don and Helen Gardiner both beat all men in the voting.

They then ask a very pertinent question,

We do not yet know if CCHQ will publish turnout and spoilt ballots data.

What we do know is this will play into the hands of the opposition, particularly UKIP in all regions and undermines all of those women who have got their ranking in a transparently unfair manner.

And don't think it won't be noticed, local papers are starting to pick up on the troubles.

Some details

At last we are getting some details about the Galvin Report into Parliamentary Secretarial Allowances. Paul Van Buitenen, the whistleblower's whistleblower is on the Budgetary Control Committee, has wandered into the secret room, and with that forensic mind of his has produced a report on the report. Talking to him yesterday he advised me to go his website. In five pages (pdf) he details the various scams that have been going on.

Claims by the institutions that there was only one MEP involved and that MEP had retired are comprehensively debunked.

1. Payment of full allowance to a service provider with only one accredited assistant (1 case),
2. Payment of full allowance to a service provider with no accredited assistants (2 cases),
3. Payment of allowance to a company with no activity shown in annual
accounts (1 case),
4. Payment of allowance to service provider with irrelevant activities, such as the provision of child care and the trading of wood. (2 cases).

Some of these items are very dodgy indeed.

In the light of the EU's huge problems with VAT fraud, the following details are interesting,

Service Contract: social security, taxes and invoices
For 79% of the audited payments (122 of 155) to which the VAT rules apply, no evidence was found for registration for VAT or exemption from VAT.
For 90% of the audited contracts (44 of 49) for individual self-employed providers, no evidence was found of coverage by a social security scheme.
...
A company contracted by a member provided full details such as VAT number, legal form and address. However there are serious doubts about the existence of this company:
-The VAT number could not be confirmed through the EC taxation and customs Union website,
-The company's name could not be found in the applicable national company register,
-The telephone number appeared to belong to another company at another address,
-The company's legal representative lived at a considerable distance from the company location.

Another Member contracted two individuals for assistance. The task descriptions were very vague and there was no evidence of a self employed status of these individuals. The Member appeared to be a director of a consultancy company in investments and the two contracted individuals appeared to be senior managers in that same company.

Another Member contracted an individual with the same name of that of his wife. His wife's professional activity appeared not to be one of a self-employed service provider.

Any claims by the Parliament that there is no fraud seem to be spurious, at the very least there has to be a serious investigation into these potential abuses.

Bruno Waterfield has blogged this at length here, and brings out a correspondence between Nigel Farage and Hans-Gert Pöttering that follows up my suggestion that somebody must be in breech of the staff regulations.

And remember only 167 payments were considered out of a total 4,700, and all this was discovered.

Pot... Kettle

So the Boy Dave has fired all his load at the Prime Minister on the great transparency issue.

Could he then explain how it is that only 13 of his MEPs have come clean about who they employ as assistants with the Parliamentary assistant's allowance.

Furthermore could he tell the 14 who refuse to answer journalists questions to get off their sorry arses and realise that the public have a right to know?

Contributions to European Political Foundations

We have been waiting for this since TEBAF Margot first announced them, and now we have the answer. The first funding for the new European Political Foundations will be 5 million Euro per annum, starting in 2008, just in time for funding campaigns in the 2009 European elections. This is to be paid for out of your money, via the good offices of the European Parliament.

The President of Parliament, Mr Pöttering has written to to Reimer Böge, Chairman of the Budget Committee to free up the cash at the Committee meeting on the 28th February.

Another budget line who cares, you might say. What the hell is one of those anyway?

The EPFs are the latest in a long line of organisations designed to gainfully employ the European political elite using taxpayer's money to tell them that Europe is wonderful.

You see they are a direct offshoot of European Political Parties, which are according to the regulation that created them in November 2003,

Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union and that they contribute to forming a European awareness

This of course is a direct lift from Article 138 of the Maastricht Treaty, which until recently has been Article 191 of the current Treaty, and becomes in the Lisbon Treaty, Article 8, 4,

“Political parties at European level contribute to forming European political awareness and to expressing the will of citizens of the Union”.

This is in my opinion a slight improvement on the old treaty (never thought I would say that) but does not take away from the fact that once created the 8.1 million Euro designated for them has been hamstrung by financial rules barring them from direct political activities,

“Such expenditure shall include administrative expenditure and expenditure linked to technical assistance, meetings, research, cross-border events, studies, information and publications”.

This from the perspective of the Commission just wouldn't do. They want to fund direct political activities, and through the EPFs they have found a way. They have modelled these EPFs on the German system with organisations like the immensely powerful Konrad Adanauer Stiftung (Which organises events like this in the UK) acting as a paradigm. So in the Commission communication calling for their creation, COM(2007) 364 final

“the Commission considers that such foundations do have an important role to play in underpinning and promoting the activities and objectives of the political parties at European level. European political foundations can underpin and complement the activities of the political parties by undertaking a range of activities that contribute to the debate on European public policy issues and European integration”,

But better, far better is this,

“it is proposed to establish clearly that appropriations received from the EU budget may also be used for the financing of campaigns conducted by the political parties at European level in the context of European Parliament elections”,

Listen to the crowing of the federastic elite in December when the regulation was signed off allowing MEPs to get more of your cash.

"European political foundations will play an important role in involving citizens in a permanent, genuine and informed political dialogue", Wallström said.

European People's Party (EPP) President Wilfried Martens described the signing of the regulation as a "turning point for the democratisation" of the EU, putting European political parties "at the centre of the […] political process" in a "new era of European politics".

Meanwhile, the establishment of European political foundations "offers endless opportunities for the development of the political debate" and the funding for European election campaigns "allows for the competition of programmes and ideology at European level," Martens added.

Upon the adoption of the reforms by MEPs on 29 November, German Socialist MEP and rapporteur on the issue Jo Leinen said they would give European political parties "more flexibility in managing their funds and financing their electoral activities".

Of course this is direct taxpayer funding of political activities, the lions share of which, by far will be for integrationist. Thus the cash-strapped Labour Party will be able to use funds accrued by the Party of European Socialists new foundation to pay for its campaign in 2009. The Lib/Dems will have their European Liberal Democratic and Reform Party one. The Tories have until now refused to join a European Political Party, as have UKIP, believing rightly in my view that the conditions imposed upon the parties in return for cash are potentially in conflict with free expression and are there to ensure compliance with European integrationalist ideas.

The simple fact that taxpayers cash is being used for this at all sticks in my craw. If political parties want to pay for campaigns, then they should get their cash through voluntary methods. If they cannot raise their cash directly through private or corporate donations, then why on earth should the benighted and overburdened taxpayer have to fund their ambitions?

This of course is but a drop in the ocean compared to the EU's own propaganda budget of course, but in this case it goes directly to the politicians who are currently refusing to come clean about their secretarial spending.

Is Galvin in breech of the rules?

If Mr Davies and others are right then there could be a clear case of breach of the rules by the internal auditor of the European parliament, Mr Robert Galvin.

It is Mr Galvin of course who wrote the report that I flagged up on Monday and has led the EU news ever since. The point is is that according to those who have read the report like Chris Davies there are strong suggestions that there are individual MEPs who have broken the law in reference to their secretarial allowance. So much so that he was talking about criminal prosecutions and calling for some MEPs being imprisoned, 'pour encourager les autres'.

the findings of the Parliament's internal auditors most definitely fall within OLAF's terms of reference. They are so serious that it should be assumed that criminal proceedings may follow.

But if Mr Davies allegations are correct, and the statement by the Parliament is also correct then Mr Galvin is in breach of the Staff Regulations of the EU. This is the statement of the Parliament in reference to the report as reported by Bruno Waterfield.

As the internal auditor's report has not revealed any individual cases of fraud, he has not recommended referring his findings to the EU anti-fraud agency OLAF. Had the auditor made such a recommendation, the Secretary General would, of course, have acted upon it.

In order for Mr Galvin to have completed his report, which was a systematic study, he must have looked at individual MEPs accounts. Therefore he would know about individual cases of corruption which Mr Davies claims exists.

Here is the passage from the Staff Regulations.

Article 22a (96)
1. Any official who, in the course of or in connection with the performance of his duties, becomes aware of facts which gives rise to a presumption of the existence of possible illegal activity, including fraud or corruption, detrimental to the interests of the Communities, or of conduct relating to the discharge of professional duties which may constitute a serious failure to comply with the obligations of officials of the Communities shall without delay inform either his immediate superior or his Director-General or, if he considers it useful, the Secretary-General, or the persons in equivalent positions, or the European Anti-Fraud Office (OLAF) direct.

...This paragraph shall also apply in the event of serious failure to comply with a similar obligation on the part of a Member of an institution or any other person in the service of or carrying out work for an institution.

The report is being discussed at he Budgetary Control Committee on Tuesday, in camera of course. My question is if there are cases of serious malpractice verging or actually criminal, then has Mr Galvin informed Mr Rømer the Secretary General of the Parliament who penned the lines above? If so then the comment would be a lie. And Mr Rømer would be in breach of regulations. If not then Mr Galvin is in breech.

One or the other could be in very big trouble. My guess is it is Mr Rømer who is retiring in the next week or so and is thus probably demob happy.

MEPs and money

It seems that the story that I wrote about on Monday has got about a bit in the last 24 hours. First of the blocks was Bruno Waterfield in the Telegraph, the Metro, PA and so on.
The fact that the Parliament has decided in its wisdom that the best way to keep the lid on the story is to put out conflicting statements. As Bruno points out on his blog,

“The report does not name people but contains sensitive information that can easily be linked to individuals. For data protection reasons the report can not be published.”

I also got: “The decision was made by the Secretary General himself (Harald Rømer, a powerful bureaucrat who manages the Parliament’s behind the scenes administration)… They do not want any collateral damage.”
Another well placed official explained: “Look we want reform and to do the right thing but we cannot make this report available to the public if we want people to vote in the European elections next year.”

Then he was told,

“The document is not secret. It is confidential. It can be read by certain approved EPs on the Budget Control Committee, in the secret room but not generally. That is not the same as a secret document nobody can read. This is a technical decision not a political one because it was taken by the auditor himself. The decision was not taken by the president or secretary general.”

One thing that really gets my goat is the magnificent definition of the difference between 'confidential' and 'secret' when it comes to documents. You see that secret means a "document nobody can read" which is as transparent a lie as I have heard for quite a while. Translated this means, "a document that nobody elected can read". The thing is that politicians, or at least some of them, and Chris Davies of the Lib/Dems is one of them, as is UKIP's Jeffrey Titford, believe that their duty is to their constituents. There are plenty of people who are allowed to read secret documents, but only those trusted not to reveal the contents, or in other words bureaucrats.

I remember reading a study into disciplinary actions in the European Commission about 8 years ago, what was telling was that very few people are disciplined at all, and those who have been fired are not the corrupt ones, no it is those who have communicated with MEPs and leaked secret documents. (Sadly I have lost this document so I cannot reference it)

The latest statement from the Parliament ends thus,

"As the internal auditor's report has not revealed any individual cases of fraud, he has not recommended referring his findings to the EU anti-fraud agency OLAF. Had the auditor made such a recommendation, the Secretary General would, of course, have acted upon it. It is standard procedure for internal audit reports to be treated as confidential".

Try to parse this if you will and you will notice something.

Robert Galvin's report is a classic EU study. Nobody is named and was never meant to be named. This was as much statistical analysis as audit. These reports are generalist documents. So given that the protocols of the system forbid naming individuals, and this document was drawn up by someone versed in the protocols, it would be impossible for him to have named names. Therefore when the Parliament tells us "the internal auditor's report has not revealed any individual cases of fraud" it is telling the truth. But that is only because the rules forbid him from doing so. If he has audited 167 randomly selected MEPs then he will know who they are. If it is the case, as Mr Davies has suggested that there are some who should be time at His Imperial Highness's pleasure, then Galvin knows who they are. It is that simple.

To then say that the confidentiality is a standard procedure is frankly risible. It used to be standard procedure of the British army to wear red and stand in tightly packed squares. The situation changed, so did the procedures.

On a different note. On Newsnight this evening one of the MEPs scams was mentioned by which an MEP invites a colleague to visit, which with the invitation can then be claimed for. The MEP can then take a holiday and will reciprocate in due course. Everybody happy apart from the taxpayer.

There is another variation of this.

MEPs receive about 3,700 euros per annum for trips out with the EU. I know of one West Midlands MEP who boasted that he got his holiday in Thailand paid for under this budget. During the week he spent there he popped into the EU 'embassy' in Bangkok for a short courtesy visit, thus he was able to claim it as a work trip.

Nice work if you can get it.