26 February 2009 European Parliament Attempts to Gag MEP Last year the European Parliament changed the rules on putting written questions to the Commission. The change was engineered by the socialist Richard Corbett, (Yorks and Humberside) who first wanted to create an 'allowance' of three per member per month. That was rejected and a compromise was forced through which gives the president of the Parliament (currently German centre-right Hans-Gert Pottering) the power to stop questions. In reality, of course, that means one of his minions now controls MEPs wanting to hold the Commission to account. Corbett's amendment was aimed at Robert Kilroy-Silk who has asked over 1000 written questions in five years, and myself and others who use them regularly. Last week the **** hit my personal fan. I was told by the deputy secretary general that one of my recent questions - aimed at Jacques Barrot, the French Commissioner for Justice, Freedom and Security (code for immigration) - had been rejected by Pottering on the grounds that it "may be considered" offensive. My response was to write the following two letters: Dear Mr Pottering I have been advised by the deputy secretary general that you have decided that a written question of mine (copy enclosed) "may be considered" offensive. It is far from clear whether this opinion is yours or one provided for you by officials. I do not see your signature on the authorisation, which may mean it is unlawful under the revised Rules of Procedure. This attempt to frustrate a Member of the European Parliament from holding the Commission to account, and seeking answers to matters of great concern to constituents, is a most serious matter. It raises numerous questions, all of which require clear answers. Whose opinion is it that this question "MAY be considered" offensive (my emphasis)? By whom? Under what circumstances? How would anyone who might be offended know? Are questions raised in the public interest now to be so edited that no possible perceived risk of offence is allowed to remain? That is plainly absurd. So we can deduce that we are dealing with opinions which may or may not be valid - itself a cause for doubt. Precisely which words in my question "may" be thought by this unknown official to "be considered" offensive? On whose authority did this unknown official reach that conclusion, and what value judgements, public interest and other relevant criteria were applied? Incidentally, why was I not consulted - surely a normal courtesy? It was inevitable when Richard Corbett tried first to limit written questions - themselves a substitute for the wholly inadequate way in which oral questions are controlled by the executive - and then devised the presidential filter now being applied to my question, that issues of principle would arise sooner or later. Now they have. Corbett's attitude was typical of the socialist mindset - if you can't win the argument, prevent the discussion. Better still, obstruct the opposition. Sadly, the centre parties missed the point and the usual federalist majority passed the filter compromise. So here we are, surprise, surprise, seeing one elected member of the parliament (you, Sir) preventing another member (me) from doing his public duty. It is the democratic process which is damaged, not us as individuals. But the European Parliament is not exactly famous for its powerful defence of democracy, now is it? Let me return to the word "offence", and ignore for the moment the specifics of my question. Let's just consider the concept. Consider this: I, and many millions of British subjects have been deeply offended over many years by the EU's constant and increasing interference in our way of life, the damage it has done to previously successful industries and commercial sectors (do I really have to list them?) our loss of sovereign law-making powers, the erosion of our national identity, the importing of continental standards of corruption and immorality in public life, the attempted and unlawful reversal of the relationship between the state and the individual, the erosion of our links with the Anglo-Saxon and English-speaking world, and the invasion of our country by uncontrollable economic migration, which was the subject of my question. We have been deeply offended. Not just "may be considered" offended. We have been and still are deeply offended (again my emphasis). But what difference has that made to the EU? Not a jot. Neither the Commission nor the ruling bureaucratic elite cares a jot about offending the British. So I strongly suggest you drop the humbug, and put my question to the Commission as drafted. I will not change a word of it. Ashley Mote Dear Commissioner Barrot I have attempted to put the following written question to you, since it concerns a matter crucial to the interests of tens of thousands of people in my constituency. Officials of the European Parliament seem to think my question "may be considered" offensive (my emphasis). They are clearly uncertain. They do not say to whom it might be offensive - surely not you. Nor do they say why. It was originally submitted on 19 January, and has clearly agonised a few bureaucratic brains for several weeks. Here it is again: Migrants Should Return Home Do not the current economic circumstances make an overwhelming case for the EU to discourage economic migration, both within the nation states and from other countries, and to promote the return of migrants to their home countries? In the UK , tens of thousands of indigenous British are out of work and unable to find new employment because potential jobs are held by foreign migrants. Is the Commission aware that this is particularly the case with the public sector, because the British government's staffing policies proactively encourage the employment of migrants at the expense of British subjects? Does the Commission not recognise the potential for civil unrest in such circumstances? As the depression worsens over the coming months, probably years, are the consequences not likely to become so serious that nationals should be encouraged - even obliged by the withdrawal of visas and permits - to go home and help sort out the mess in their own country? I look forward to your early response. Thank you. Ashley MoteTitle
Thursday, 26 February 2009
Posts
