Priorities, priorities

EU Observer is reporting that senior officials in Belgium are in no hurry to form a government. The reason is that it could unravel all their hard work in setting up the Belgian EU Presidency that starts in July. As I asked a week or so ago about the Belgian political crisis 'Who Cares'?

Well it is becoming increasingly apparent that the EU does indeed care.

"The current government still has full powers," a senior Belgian official told press in an off-the-record briefing on Sunday (27 June). "Everything we have decided on for the EU presidency has been agreed by all parties from both French and Flemish-speaking communities."
The current set of ministers has built up detailed knowledge of the issues set to dominate the presidency's to-do list as well as constructive personal relationships with their EU counterparts, another contact said.
"The danger is that the new government forms just at the moment of another crisis in the EU," the second Belgian official explained, citing a potential member state application to the eurozone's recently-agreed emergency funding mechanism as an example.

That this sort of stuff is being said, demi-officially speaks volumes. In days of yore elctions were held to form governments that attempted to represent the views of the people who voted. National governments were elected and put forward a program that spoke for and to their electorate.

Now it seems that those views are an inconvienience to the true business, which is to ensure the smooth running of the European Union.

We (the elite) decided to do x or y. Then the people had a say and said the wrong thing, so it would be better all round if we didn't respond to the wishes of the people and just carried on anyway with our previous plans.

Not sure what I would call it, but it certainly does not display any understanding or adhearence to democratic principles.

If I was a Belgian I would be sick to my stomach, and not because of the overcooked Waterzooi

Post-Democracy the Sarko way

The Tin-Pot dictator that is Sarkozy has let his guard down in an off the record briefing in Paris.

Bruno Waterfield has the details, proving the astonishing fact that excluding a journalist from a briefing doesn't mean that the journalist won't get to hear what is being said,

The French strategy during their six month EU Presidency, which began on July 1, is to isolate Ireland after last month's referendum rejection of the Lisbon European Union Treaty.

With the Irish people in quarantine, the other 26 EU countries will press ahead with ratifying the Treaty - 19 have done so. Mr Sarkozy made it very clear that there would be no renegotiation of a Treaty that was Part II of the EU Constitution rejected by French and Dutch voters three years ago.

"There will be no Treaty Part III," he said.

The Irish do not count.

France, along with the rest of the EU is looking for "escape hatch". "We need a soft landing in October," said Mr Sarkozy, when there will be EU summit in Brussels to find way forward by the time of European elections on June 4.

The Irish either will be asked to vote again, in a rerun of Ireland's second referendum on the Nice Treaty in 2002 - or Ireland's people will be bypassed.

If the perspective of a second vote in Ireland has been raised it is because it has happened before," said Mr Sarkozy.

"We need some kind of vote to get out of the situation - Parliament or referendum I don't know. But when democratic society says ‘no', you need some kind of democratic solution."

Any means necessary to get an Irish Yes, is what the French President is getting at here. There is no other answer.

But the Poles and Czechs are flies in Mr Sarkozy's ointment, with both uppity new East European countries threatening to delay or block a Treaty that requires all 27 EU member states to ratify it before it enters into force.

Mr Sarkozy made it clear he was deeply unimpressed with Polish President Lech Kaczynski's refusal to sign off a "pointless" Treaty after it had been ratified in his country's parliament.

"The Polish President has never been an easy partner to work with on building and shaping a stronger Europe," he said. "I can't imagine how the President can go against the will of the parliament. It's odd."

Mr Sarkozy warned the new member states that France would block any further EU enlargement unless Warsaw and Prague knuckle under and do what they are told.
"I will fight to ensure that EU membership does not exceed 27," he said.

The French President warned the Czechs that they would pay a price if Prague continues to grumble about ratifying the Treaty.

"Our Czech friends will have the EU Presidency on Jan 1 it is very difficult to see them blocking a solution," he said. "If the Czechs dig in their heels they will start their presidency in great isolation."

Always good to see those democratic credentials spilling out isn't it?

The growth of bureacratic despotism

You might recall the fuss made about Danial Hannan and the aggregating of power in the hands of the President of the European Parliament. Hannan suggested that giving the President arbitrary power over the rules of procedure and so on was akin to the National Socialist Enabling Act, which resulted in him being chucked out of the EPP and wild allegations against him.

Well it seems that we now have the written equivalent of those powers. I give you the latest Richard Corbett report to hit the Constitutional Affairs Committee,

Draft Report on amendment of Parliament's Rules of Procedure in the light of the proposals by the Working Party on Parliamentary Reform concerning the work of the Plenary and initiative reports

Are you asleep yet? No, well read on. This report has been quite a long time in gestation, but has been given some urgency by the way in which the institutions of the European Union are gearing up to a post Constitutional ratification world. A world in which they get their way and dissent shall not be brooked.

I protest too much you might assume. OK then please tell me what this amendment could possibly be for? (Rule of Procedure 110 is the rule governing Parliamentary Questions to the Commission or Council - the Corbett Amendment is in italics),

Amendment 6
Rule 110, paragraph 2

2. Questions shall be submitted in writing to the President who shall forward them to the institution concerned. Doubts concerning the admissibility of a question shall be settled by the President. His decision shall be notified to the questioner.

Currently the questions are sent to the administration and if they are incorrectly or flabbily worded the civil servant at the tabling office will often send through a steer on how they might be amended to make everybody's life easier. However the tabling office has no right to refuse any question. There is not right of appeal set out in this amendment or Amendment 11 that sets out the guidelines for Parliamentary Questions,

Amendment 11
Annex II a (new)
ANNEX II a
Guidelines for questions for written answer under Rule 110
1. Questions for written answer shall:
- refer to matters which come within the European Union's fields of activity;
- be concise and contain an understandable interrogation;
- not contain offensive language;
- not relate to strictly personal matters.

Why can't the questions be "offensive"? According to the explanatory memorandum,

This point in particular should prevent any possible outrages to the fundamental values of the European Union.

Fundamental values cannot be outraged. Only people can be outraged. Values are abstract. For pities sake, is he saying that some poor admin official in the Commission might come over with a fit of the vapours at an impertinent suggestion? Anyhow, I wonder if there ever have been "offensive" questions, and if so what did they say? And if not why introduce a rule barring them?

About the striking out of "strictly personal matters" from admissibility, there is not a word of justification. However would questions such as, "Who did you go on holiday with Mr Commissioner?" or "Were you sleeping with your Chef de Cabinet before you gave her the job Mr Commissioner?" be barred under this rule? Of course they would.

Fundamentally the tabling office can still make suggestions, but the difference is that the President can rule a question out of order.

The problems with this are legion, but the most obvious is this. Hans-Gert Pöttering may, or may not be the committed democrat as stated by Mr Hannan. But we have no way of telling what the political character of a future President might be. Thus to create rules like this that concentrate increasing arbitrary powers in the hands of the President is constitutionally foolhardy, indeed dangerous. Of course what concerns does Mr Corbett have? That the poor fellow might find himself overworked,

However, in order to respond to fears that an excessive workload could be a hindrance to her/his activity, it has to be observed that pursuant to Rule 20(3) the President will always benefit from the possibility of delegating the exercise of the powers under Rule 110(2) to a Vice-president.

Now let us turn our attention to Amendment 7. Here I must explain there are two forms of Parliamentary Questions. Priority and general. MEPs are allowed very limited urgent questions that must be answered within three weeks, that is one per month. However the use of non-priority questions are unlimited. Or they have been until now,

Amendment 7
Rule 110, paragraph 4, subparagraph 2

Other questions (non-priority questions) shall be answered within six weeks of being forwarded to the institution concerned. Each Member may table up to three non-priority questions each month.

What Corbett is proposing is nothing less than the limiting of an MEPs right to hold the Executive of the European Union, that is the Commission and Council, to account. His reasoning is this,

The criteria are formulated in a form, which fully respects the right of Members to address written questions to the Commission and to expect an answer in due time. On the other hand clear provisions are introduced to avert any abuses of this right, notably the new limit of three for non-priority questions

Parliamentarians asking questions is NOT and abuse of their rights Mr Corbett. Restructuring their right to do so is an abuse of the Rules of Procedure and a direct threat to the lifeblood of any functioning representative democracy. It doesn't seem that you care about that, and for that you should be roundly castigated.

Comment Forum

So what do we do now

As predicted the Constitutional Affairs Committee have in their wisdom granted the President of Parliament the arbitrary powers that he requested.

Amongst those paragons of democracy that voted this disgraceful measure through were a clean sweep of the mainstream British political parties. For Labour we had the egregious Richard Corbett, rule maker and flouter in chief. The man who in clear breach of Parliamentary rules sold his own book for profit on the premises of the Parliament. A complaint went to the Queastors who have never got back with a response. They do not punish their own of course. For the Liberal Democrats may I present Andrew Duff. The author of The True Guide to the Lisbon Treaty. Duff and Corbett are co-authors of the hagiographic Parliament report on the Constitution that will be passed without dissent in Strasbourg on the 19th February. And for the Conservatives support for this was given to Timothy Kirkhope. Formerly leader of the Tory delegation, his last reshuffle removed Daniel Hannan from the Committee and gave himself the nth Vice-Chairmanship.

They are a shower and should be pelted with eggs and rotten vegetables whenever they have the ill-advised chutzpah ever to appear on England's shores again.

Irrelevant aside.
Go and take a look at Kirkhope's Website and see if you can spot the deliberate mistake? Something to do with this,
"Brown Must Resist Threat of More Qirport Eed Tape for UK's Hard Pressed Passengers" Eh?