Posts Tagged European Parliament

The fifth woman

Posted by Stephen Gardner in EU on July 26, 2010

An amusing story from the UK Labour party leadership campaign, which is ongoing. The following is an article of mine that was published in British magazine Private Eye:

Although they are an endangered species nowadays, numbering only 13 out of Britain’s 72 elected euro-representatives, UK Labour Party MEPs will play an important role in the Labour leadership election.

Their votes count equally with those of members of the Westminster parliament. Thus it has been that in the last few weeks, four leadership hopefuls – Ed Balls, Andy Burnham and both Milibands – have pitched up in Brussels to state their cases.

But what of the fifth candidate, Diane Abbott? Well, she was invited. But MEPs were somewhat surprised to receive the emailed reply that Diane would be unable to attend a meeting due to being “very busy with the leadership campaign”. Has anyone told her that she ignores Brussels at her peril!

3 Comments

Convicted MEPs

Posted by Stephen Gardner in EU Insider on July 22, 2010

Andrea D’ambra, a campaigner from Italy, is trying to get MEPs with criminal convictions booted out of the European Parliament. He has even set up a Facebook group. He lists three Italians, Vito Bonsignore, Aldo Patriciello and Mario Borghezio as having various convictions for “serious criminal offences relating to corruption charges, discrimination and illegal financial practices.” To this we can add Jean-Marie le Pen (various hate crime convictions), Bruno Gollnisch (Holocaust denial), Nick Griffin (incitement to racial hatred) and Andrew Brons (breach of the peace, OK not exactly crime of the century).

How many MEPs with criminal convictions are there? Which country has the most? We should be told! Give me names (current MEPs only; Ashley Mote and Tom Wise are history).

,

15 Comments

Question marks over EP new buildings deal

Posted by Stephen Gardner in EU Insider on October 9, 2009

In March, the European Parliament proudly inaugurated two new Brussels buildings, needed to house the ever-expanding travelling circus of members, assistants and bureaucrats. But the Parliament is less happy to talk about some of the financing arrangements behind the buildings’ construction.

The Parliament leases the buildings, known as the Willy Brandt and József Antall buildings. It signed in 2004 a whopping €284 million deal with a Belgian developer which, shortly before, exercised an option to buy the land on which the buildings now stand. Under the deal, the developer was to raise the finance to fund the construction.

Because of this, according to the Parliament, a public procurement process was not required for the financing bids. The developer oversaw it all, soliciting bids for the financing under which the buildings would be constructed, leased and eventually sold to the European Parliament. This is rather like buying a house and asking the seller to arrange the mortgage for you. Whose best interests will the seller look after?

The Parliament has so far refused to release documents related to the deal. Many documents are held by the developer, and, the Parliament says, cannot therefore be made public. However, the Parliament holds a report, done by KPMG, on the financing bids assembled by the developer. But the Parliament will not release this either, citing commercial confidentiality.

The EU Ombudsman has now weighed in, saying the Parliament should release the report and other documents, or “give convincing explanations for not doing so” — the implication being that explanations so far have not been convincing. Will the Parliament clear up these muddy waters? It has until October 31 to respond to the Ombudsman.

[A version of this article was published in Private Eye magazine].

,

8 Comments

Barroso gets nervous

Posted by Stephen Gardner in EU Insider on July 10, 2009

Panic stations in Camp Barroso. The former Portuguese prime minister, who has steered the European ship for the last five years, can see his second term slipping through his fingers. A letter circulated yesterday (9 July) to the political groups in the Parliament advertised Barroso’s willingness to come and make his pitch to them, and contained a note of desperation: “I believe I have the vision and the experience to lead the Commission… I would like to indicate my availability for meeting with the different political groups in the Parliament that so wish in order to discuss the policy orientations I intend to propose for the next five years.”

Barroso has now been formally nominated by the EU Council, but when it comes to the vote in the Parliament, it is really not easy to see how it might turn out. Crucially, if the vote takes place under Lisbon Treaty rules, for example if it takes place in October after the Irish re-vote, Barroso must secure an absolute majority of MEPs, not just a majority of those who are in the chamber at the time.

That means he has to get 369 votes. As things presently stand, he is backed by the centre right and the slightly more right of the centre right – equivalent to 320 votes. He is opposed, or at least not backed, by the ALDE group, the socialists, the greens and the far left – totalling 358 votes. In other words, no absolute majority either way.

So Barroso can try and convince, for example, ALDE to back him, which would give him an absolute majority (404 votes). There are also in theory 58 floating votes, if we take into account non-aligned members, the fascists, and assorted nutters who do not sit in the six largest groups.

For those not backing Barroso, it is hard to see any reason why they would want to take a vote on him before October. If the vote is postponed until then, if the Irish vote in favour of the Lisbon Treaty, and if the vote then becomes a vote on the whole Commission under Lisbon rules, the socialists, greens, etc., can push for a grand bargain covering all the top EU jobs. Under Lisbon, this would include of course a new EU Council permanent president, and a new EU ‘foreign minister’.

If that happens, there would be no foregone conclusion. Although strong alternatives to Barroso have yet to emerge, it is not hard to see why panic is starting to take hold.

, ,

2 Comments