|
|
East Midlands Counties |
NEWS & PRESS RELEASES
26 Feb 08
By far the best commentary
this week is this article sent to the press office for final
"management" and issue. This is an account of the meeting this
morning, attended by several experts from the EU and the unions who addressed
the committee and took questions. I am indebted to Ralph Atkinson for this
final composition which shows that the EU are,
potentially, in a tight spot over the Lisbon Treaty. The full impact was made
clear to me by Kathy Sinnott, our Irish Ind-Dem member, who attends this committee as much as she
can while serving on another. I asked her why she was here today, to which she
replied, "in terms of the Irish referendum this is dynamite":-
EU Bashes the right
to strike
The European Court
of Justice or ECJ, has overruled fundamental rights guaranteed by the EU and
endangered the European Constitution, AKA the Lisbon Treaty.
In the European Parliament Employment and Social Affairs Committee today (
The ECJ's Mr Ricci insisted that "Article 3
of the Lisbon Treaty states minimum conditions have to be established". He
went on to say that "the rules on this are exhaustive". "Perhaps he means minimum conditions
like the minimum wage", commented UKIP MEP Derek
John Monks of the ETUC, the European Trades Union Congress, was scathing
about the ECJ rulings. He said the most
worrying thing about the Viking ruling was that "collective action must be
deemed proportionate", but only the ECJ decides what is proportionate. Every future action may have to be referred
to them. Mr Monks said "With the
Laval case the ECJ has challenged the Euro Parliament view by ruling the free
movement of services can challenge collective bargaining". He said this threatened the autonomy of the
Trades Unions. "Trades Unions
across the EU are now deeply concerned with the protection of National
Systems... this will damage the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty".
The ECJ established that Articles 39, 40 and 43 cover the freedom of
establishment of services but only applies to services between citizens and
States - not to workers. It is up to
National Governments to uphold the EU's allegedly
guaranteed fundamental right to collective action. The EU won't.
"But what it will do is restrict
freedom of action on Trade Union agreements as witnessed by the Laval and
Viking verdicts" said Derek Clark MEP.
Mr Monks words cause panic in the Hemicycle
chamber. One MEP described the situation
as "A systemic failure".
Another called it "protection light". Far Left Portuguese MEP Mrs Figueredo claimed "it seems that at any time the EU
give priority to article 49 and our social rights can be flouted". Irish Socialist MEP Mr Da
Rossa, unable to phrase a question in the minute
provided, demanded a second question on the issue "because I'm fighting a
life an death struggle against Euroscepticism in
Ireland" he said.
A Europhile himself, John Monk of the ETUC replied to Mr Da Rossa that, "I, like you,
face the Eurosceptic tide". The panicking Irish
MEP Mr Da Rossa said,
"Many of my members claim the Euro-Liberal attack eats into our social
conditions".
British MEP Steven Hughes (Labour North West) asked, "Is this the
return of the Country of Origin principle?". He
was not happy when John Monks replied, "yes it was", but went on to
say that, "An EU principle of equal treatment would reassure Trades Unions
the EU is not all about Social dumping" He pointed out this had been
blocked by the UK government.
"The result of this will be that
companies set up their head office in the Member State that offers the lowest
worker pay and conditions in order to gain from the Country of Origin
rule", said UKIP MEP Derek Clark,
"British jobs will be in danger".
"The
The judgements are
of key importance because they show that the 'fundamental right' to Collective
bargaining and indeed collective action of any kind, guaranteed by the EU
(article 28), can be challenged and over ruled by the EU rules on the free
movement of services and workers (Article 49).
In an Orwellian aside it appeared that, "The right to strike may be fundamental but not as fundamental
as the right to freedom of movement for jobs, services and workers".
Mr Monks proposed the European Parliament quickly put forward, "A
social progress clause in the Lisbon Treaty to establish workers rights above
minimum standards". He went on to say "We are looking for action in
the European Parliament and quickly!".
"Unfortunately",
pointed out UKIP MEP Derek
"The EU's guaranteed
fundamental rights are meaningless", said Derek Clark MEP. "Their own Court, the ECJ, an organisation obliged to seek 'ever
closer
NB Mr Monk of the ETUC also mentioned the Rufort
case coming up in mid-March as likely to lead to a reminder that, "We are
told the right to strike is fundamental but the right to free movement of
services is more important".
Derek Clark MEP
SPEECH TO PARLIAMENT - COHESION,
TERRITORIAL AGENDA & THE
21 Feb 08
These
reports comment on the disparity between the rural and urban economies, between
rich and poor, especially in
The
answer, apparently, is to offer a vast catalogue, including Cultural, Economic,
Technical developments and of Social Engineering provision.
It notes
the success of such programs in
Above all
it mentions Cohesion Funds, we get to the nub; 65 billion euros on such
programs in needy western countries in the last few years, but
Unfortunately
for all its citizens, the well off and the poor alike, these subsidies are
self-defeating for they strip initiative away from people and produce a culture
of dependency.
If you
really want to help listen to professor Buchanan of
the London School of Economics. His paper states that, to help a poor country,
trade is worth six times more than aid. Will you learn that?
Or put it
another way. If, in a poor country, you give a starving man a fish you feed him
for a day; teach him how to fish and you feed him for life.
Derek Clark MEP
20 Feb 08
UKIP were part of our peaceful, quiet demo against the
Three gallant assistants, as fully dressed chickens, were
not allowed even to cross the bridges which give access to the debating chamber.
More security guards than we've ever seen, while our protest in the chamber was
ignored by the President and staff. They are learning but we made a point or
two.
By now you may well have seen video coverage on "You
Tube" and the party web site. What that does not show is attempted
suppression. An independent ITN camera man, well liked by all of us, took
extensive footage but was told by the Parliament Audio Visual Services that he
could not use it, and to surrender his material, "the Parliament does not
approve of dissent"!! Rescue by the
BBC whose Head of the Parliamentary Unit here
immediately threatened to withdraw all BBC coverage of the Parliament -
permanently. Climb down, "there has
been a certain over reaction".
You may recall that our earlier chamber protest - banners,
making oral explanations of vote in numbers, was supported by the Nordic Green
Left and by half a dozen Tories. This time the NGL made a bit of an effort but
of the Tories, nothing. Roger Helmer was head down below the parapet. You will have seen
the newspaper coverage of Dan Hannan's comments about
the President being granted sweeping powers to overturn the rules as he saw fit
and his allusions to a certain former Chancellor. Before the vote Hannan uttered the most abject, grovelling apology I've
ever heard. It was embarrassing to hear, although he had already voted for his
own expulsion from the EPP.
The three items which follow are from the press service we
get here, incomplete though they are. Nigel spoke in his usual style while Jim Allister spoke with the penetration you would expect from a
QC. Mary Lou MacDonald was a revelation,
delivering with all the fire of a passionate Irish lady, quite
magnificent".
Mary Lou MCDONALD (GUE/NGL, IE) spoke of a "fear of
referendums" in all Member States except
"What the EP is engaged in here in today's debate is nothing less than a
massive exercise of deceit" said Nigel FARAGE (IND/DEM,
"I reject this report and the treaty it supports", said Jim ALLISTER (
Finally, I claim a victory. You will recall that I have been
speaking out in committee and parliament against the inclusion in a proposed EU
Housing Census of questions asking women about, "their first consensual
union" ie when they first had sex. The report
has been revised and revised with the rapporteur, Ona Jukneviciene, striving to
have this eliminated. I put out a memo to all MEPs on
Monday evening asking them to help me in supporting the rapporteur
with their vote.
The voting list was changed several times the night before
the vote and Ralph Atkinson, my assistant here, was dubious as to the final
state. We were very suspicious especially when, in the event, the third vote,
suddenly introduced, was an ambiguous amendment the passing of which would seem
to delete all else. It did pass, no other votes were taken, apart from passing
the whole directive, and I was left unsure as to the status of the offending
questions.
Correspondence today with both the committee secretariat,
and with Ona Jukneviciene,
establishes that the offending question has been finally deleted. I believe
that my sustained support for Ms Jukneviciene, and my
continued speaking out about it, has materially helped in squashing this highly
improper question. I claim a shared victory.
A comment to those who may need it. I do not aim, ever, to improve any
EU directive but there are occasions when I believe it right to try to prevent
something grotesque finding its way in. In this case I have played a leading
part in seeing that a highly intrusive question, insulting to women everywhere,
has been deleted.
Derek Clark MEP
SPEECH TO PARLIAMENT – THE FIGHT
AGAINST FRAUD
18 Feb 08
Mr President,
This report is a long catalogue of failure. It graphically illustrates how the
amount of fraud, described as 'irregularities', is steadily rising and that
attempts to deal with it are failing.
It openly admits that fraud in 2006 in the areas of own resources, agricultural
expenditure and Member States' structural actions totalled 1,143 million euros.
In 2003 it was 922 million euros (£691 million), so in just four years fraud
has risen by over 221 million euros.
I would remind everyone in this institution that these are not meaningless sums
of money, but taxpayers' money. The EU is financed by its citizens,
including hard-pressed taxpayers in the over-taxed
Governments of all the member states should be saying 'enough already' and
these appalling figures provide all the more reason why the Government in
my country should honour its manifesto commitment to give the British people a
referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.
Derek Clark MEP
GOVERNMENT BID TO OWN OUR KIDS
13 Feb 08
The government’s announcement of a new database
containing permanent details of all schoolchildren has been attacked as an attempt
at official “ownership” of our children by a UK Independence Party MEP.
"The very idea that the government thinks it is acceptable to create yet
another database to log and check every child in the country almost beggars
belief,” said Derek Clark, a former teacher.
"At a time when trust in the government's ability to keep data
secure is at an all-time low, how can they think that this is a good
idea?"
The new database, to be called MIAP (Managing Information Across
Partners), is designed to create a "tamper proof CV" and will include
a range of personal details including examination results.
Mr Clark said: "On the same day when we hear that exam results are deeply
flawed, with errors and fraud at record levels, the government announces that
it wants to keep these records for life. That could be a millstone round the
neck of every child for ever. It is a disgrace and should not even be
contemplated.
"Not only do they want to have this data, but they are also fingerprinting
our children in schools and have created the Children's Index (from which the
children of politicians and celebrities are exempt), which will house
information on family and social life. It may not have occurred to the
government, but it does not in fact own our children."
He added: "What happens in school should stay in school. Schools have
always been obliged to protect children's privacy. So please tell us, what has
changed?"
FARAGE – EUROSCEPTICISM IS NOT ENOUGH
4 Feb 08
UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage has issued a statement in response to media reports
suggesting that UKIP will not stand against Eurosceptic
candidates at the next general election. "Our policy remains in
place," Mr Farage said. "The only
circumstance in which we will not stand is against MPs who have signed up to
the Better Off Out campaign. For us, saying that someone is Eurosceptic
is not sufficient."
31 Jan 08
You will
have seen in the papers the moves to ban patio heaters. Many publicans use them
for out-door smoking areas so this would drive many out of business. Not that
this makes any difference to Fiona Hall who promoted the directive in the
parliament. The vote was taken this morning with two surprises for you. First,
Fiona is a Lib-Dem, secondly the vote was passed by
592 to 26 against.
As the
vote was taken Godfrey Bloom rose on a point of order. "Mr
President", he said," when I attended your office yesterday at
The
president replied that obviously Mr Bloom had got over heated himself. Probably
correct, except he would have thought Godfrey was feeling hot through
naughty-boy embarrassment when in fact it will have been of the
under-the-collar-variety.
Godfrey's
appearance in the presidential suite caused some of us concern. Nigel was put out, I was not best pleased either. It was occasioned by our
protests of last week; the blanket Roll Call Votes and requests to make oral
explanations of vote. As a result several members got letters summoning them to
the presence. Not Nigel however, who wanted to know, in his point of order, why
not, as leader he was prime mover. No answer. That's my grumble too. Nigel had
had to go home early that week (family calls), so on the Thursday I was the
last UKIP MEP standing. And I don't get carpeted!
This
followed the extraordinary powers granted to the president to allow him to veto
Roll Call Votes and explanations of vote. Both of these are clearly written in
the rules so he now has authority to do what he wants because it was voted on
this morning. Nigel's point of order was to delay the vote to give time for
political groups to consider it in depth. Lost on show of
hands by a huge margin. The vote to legitimise rule by presidential
decree was carried by 492 - 55.
Democracy,
who said democracy?.
I will now
be sending back to the office a number of letters for as many of the media
outlets in the
Derek
Clark MEP
RATIFICATION OR REFERENDUM
? -
By Nigel Farage
18
2008
for the Irish, who will hold one. This Treaty, virtually identical in context
to the failed EU Constitution, transfers significant powers to
Timetable
The second reading of the Treaty is due to come before the House of Commons on
21st or
with a couple of weeks or so of debate, to be completed in March. The process
will then move to the House of Lords. The EU is keen to have 26
ratifications before the Irish Referendum, which will probably be in May.
UKIP Actions
Court Case
Ex-Labour Party activist but now UKIP member Stuart Bower has a case against
Gordon Brown. Stuart stood for UKIP in
General Election of 2005 and will be our candidate there again.
On 7th February at
(the right to a free election).
His argument is that the manifesto pledge to have a referendum was a binding contract
which has been broken. UKIP members who want to support
Stuart will be told more by the South East organiser Steve Harris, who can be
reached on 01903-885573. I will be there on the day, too, and we can
expect considerable interest in the result.
Street Campaigns
It is likely that the end of February and through
March will see huge interest in the media about this Treaty. We need as many
UKIP branches and
candidates out in High Streets and markets meeting the public.
Steve Allison, Head of Campaigns, will be e-mailing a petition form to every
branch this week which can be downloaded. Every signatory who gives
us permission will receive further details about UKIP and our campaign for
independence.
It is worth remembering that in 2003 large numbers joined UKIP after signing
petitions.
European Parliament
The Treaty comes before the European Parliament in February. The result there
is a foregone conclusion.
In December we led the protest against the Charter of Fundamental Rights. There will be further protests because these
people have reneged on a
promise to give a referendum.
Houses of Commons and Lords
With no UKIP MPs it is the Tory Party who will lead the demands for a
referendum on this Treaty (we must bear in mind that their euro scepticism
runs no deeper than this).
Perhaps our best hope is a referendum amendment in the House of Lords where
Lords Pearson and Willoughby de Broke will play their part.
At the moment the arithmetic does not look very promising. This is chiefly
because the Lib-Dems have also broken their manifesto
pledge to support a
referendum on the Treaty.
Irish Campaign
Our Irish colleague Kathy Sinnott works with us in
the
knock on doors in May. The other nationalities in IND/DEM will also be sending
helpers.
Treaty!
17 Jan 08
Following
our noisy protest last December against the signing of the Constitution,
(sorry, Lisbon Treaty!) we have kept up the pressure this week but peacefully
not to overdo things. So now we took up the rule book
Using
their own rules we have attempted to disrupt proceedings in the chamber, first
so as disrupt the schedule and put back the items they really want to talk
about. Hence my speech on Monday night, "Transport
rates" (see below). Debates on a proposal only occur when demanded
by a political group. Normally this is taken as read and almost everything is
debated, except for some low key issues, like this one. With no debate
scheduled we made the request, and debate ensued.
A further
bonus concerned the Commission because the appropriate commissioner has to open
the any debate and sum up. So, on Monday other MEP s had to stay up, they would
not leave the floor to me unopposed, and Commissioner Verheugen
had to come down from
We then
put in for RCVs, Roll Call Votes. Every day these
electronic votes are recorded and a booklet is published showing how MEPs voted. Quite right too, electors have the right to
know. Up to this week most voting session has had only about twenty per cent of
votes as RCVs, they take longer to do than a show of hands. So, on
Tuesday we exercised our right under the rules to put in a group request for an
RCV on every single vote. Voting occurs immediately before lunch, threatening
to delay that most sacrosanct of continental practices. We were not very
popular.
The
following day several MEPs protested loudly at our
behaviour, but we did it again just the same. Unfortunately it has back-fired
to some extent. It did not take as long to do all votes that way as had been
thought because everyone concentrated on it. As you will know Graham Booth
frequently complains that votes by show of hands are often wrong and on an
electronic check he is often right. To get a check MEPs
have to shout "check" but of course there was none of that, so all
was quiet and dignified and all the votes are correct. We did not intend to improve
things!
We did
manage to force them to break their own rules. Immediately after every voting
session there is an "explanation of votes", when you can have one
minute to say why you voted as you did. That's also good democracy. To do that
orally, as opposed to a recorded written statement, you trot up to the high
desk with an oral request form, before explanations begin. So Tuesday saw a
whole procession of us making our way to the front to hand in the forms, one
for every vote.
We have
worked with others in this, including Chris Heaton-Harris and Roger Helmer, to a total of 14 that day on 9 proposals. One
minute on each would have taken over two hours. The President of the day did
not like that, his lunch would have been abandoned, so
he refused to do it! He proposed taking explanations later in the day. We
protested at this breach of rules so he actually took a vote to re-schedule for
close of business that night, ie
We did it
all again on Wednesday and Thursday with fewer MEPs,
with 9 of us then, so explanations were taken at the right time. It took 45
minutes and we all stuck it out, of course. All was courteous and friendly,
even coping with the conclusion of all our explanations of vote, " ...ratification of the Constitution despite its
rejection in two referendums is undemocratic and illegitimate".
It might
seem to be a pointless exercise with so few MEPs to
hear all that. Not so; like all other speeches and statements in the House
every word is recorded and published in each day's verbatim record of
proceedings. Which is also why I volunteered to make a speech
at
Derek
Clark MEP
SPEECH TO PARLIAMENT - DEBATE,
DISCRIMINATION IN TRANSPORT RATES AND CHARGES
14 Jan 08
Mr
President I congratulate the commission. You don't hear that from up here very
often do you? This is a rare example of a report that is on the right road, -
to
We insist
on debating this report because it seeks to cut regulation. It admits that
small businesses are being weighed down by obsolete legislation, some of it
back to 1960.
Explanatory
memorandum,- "These unnecessary administrative
burdens hamper economic activity and have a negative impact on the
competitiveness of European enterprises". I could not agree more, why stop
here?
Why slash
only the paperwork for companies of 10 employees or less? Why not go the whole
hog and apply it to the whole of the food transport industry? Go on, make a bonfire of another 100,000 bits of legislation.
And scrap the Commission, Parliament and Council.
I'm serious, by cutting these burdens you enable the nations of
Derek
Clark MEP
SPEECH TO PARLIAMENT - DEBATE,
DISCRIMINATION IN TRANSPORT RATES AND CHARGES
15 Jan 08
Mr
President I congratulate the commission. You don't hear that from up here very
often do you? This is a rare example of a report that is on the right road, -
to
We insist
on debating this report because it seeks to cut regulation. It admits that
small businesses are being weighed down by obsolete legislation, some of it
back to 1960.
Explanatory
memorandum,- "These unnecessary administrative
burdens hamper economic activity and have a negative impact on the
competitiveness of European enterprises". I could not agree more, why stop
here?
Why slash
only the paperwork for companies of 10 employees or less? Why not go the whole
hog and apply it to the whole of the food transport industry? Go on, make a bonfire of another 100,000 bits of legislation.
And scrap the Commission, Parliament and Council.
I'm serious, by cutting these burdens you enable the nations of
Derek
Clark MEP
18 Dec 07
It was all
In the
Employment Committee the Portuguese Minister for Labour told us how they had
moved things on so well but he obviously had not been speaking to his Prime
Minister. Committee members asked questions about that which exercises
them the most. They wanted to know about the regulation for the Temporary
Workers Agency and about the Working Time Directive. They thought there had
been little progress here and got the explanation.
These two
directives, said the Portuguese Minister, had been run together. The Commission
apparently thought that was a wonderful idea. However, they had run into
difficulties, there was a vote to take in Council. They dare not risk losing
the vote so it was never taken. “Never mind”, he brightly said, “we are passing
all that on to
And so to
the special plenary on Tuesday afternoon when Socrates, the Portuguese Prime
Minister, told us how wonderful their Presidency had been. That must be true
because he spent forty minutes telling us so, during which he listed just about
every EU cause you could think of from full employment to climate change.
Just
before he inflicted this tedium upon us Socrates had joined Barroso
and Pottering in signing the Budget documents for next year. In his response to
the Portuguese President Nigel complimented them on doing so but asked if the
auditors could also sign them at the end of the year. He did not get a clap for
that.
Finally I
need to put you all in your place by returning to the Employment Committee and
the question of the Working Time Directive and its opt
– outs. Mr Cercas got quite passionate.” A group of
countries”, he said, “do not want a social
Happy Christmas.
Derek
Clark MEP
10 – 13 Dec 07
On
Thursday Nigel attended the ceremony in
You may
have seen the slight newspaper coverage of the event of Wednesday, the
ceremonial signing of the “Proclamation of the Charter of Fundamental Rights”.
We were
all there for that. We had already
displayed our ten foot banner with its simple message, REFERENDUM. I was
holding one end, Gerard the other. There were supposed to have been three other
identical banners. The non-attached MEPs (NI) did
their stuff as did the Nordic Green Left.
The fourth banner should have been seen among the ranks of the Tories, I
could have missed it of course but it did not seem to be there. A bit odd, if
you read the papers Dan Hannan was the organiser, not
really true, it was more Hans Peter Martin, seen in the papers on one end of
the NI banner. We were deeply involved and it was our assistants who decked all
the protesters out in black t-shirts with Referendum across the front.
Up to now
your UKIP MEPs have been very restrained only making
protests elsewhere, outside the chamber. In the chamber we have restricted
ourselves to scheduled speeches and one or two silent walkouts. Enough is
enough and so this time, in the face of their arrogance in pushing the
Constitution through without consulting the people we decided to be positive.
After all, the Proclamation signed in the House on Wednesday is a central plank
of the unapproved Constitution which was not due to be signed until a day
later!
So this
time all of us stood, jacket-less to reveal our Referendum t-shirts, held up
the banners and/or individual A3 Referendum placards and chanted in unison,
“Referendum, Referendum ………..” We were
joined by the infamous ITS group (with whom we had no prior arrangements), the
assorted NI, the rest of the Ind Dem group, the
communists and sundry other MEPs. We all kept up our
chant throughout the speeches by Pottering, Socrates and others, ignored the
ushers who rushed frantically round trying to confiscate placards and banners -
but they left me alone.
Having
protested once we lowered the banners and shut up but re-started,
banners, chants and all while they actually signed and continued when, to our
astonishment, they played the so-called European anthem. We drowned that out
but, believe it or not, while that was playing almost all others present stood
to attention, ramrod straight, see picture above. Some of our ladies, Jane
included, were in the visitors gallery and, there too, at least one visitor
group also stood to attention!
You had to
be there to see it and believe. You know my age so I am sure you will
understand that it evoked more than one memory for me. There is no doubt that
we saw the beginnings of yet another totalitarian system about to hold
In the
picture below I am seen outside the chamber talking to the head of security
with one of our Maltese assistants, Sharon Bonici.
During our protest in the chamber
Just
before voting the following day, with only a few of us left, Martin Schulz, the
German leader of the Socialists launched into a tirade against us. The events
of the previous day he described as disgraceful and undemocratic. He accused us
all of assaulting the ushers. I was right there and I saw no UKIP MEPs doing any such thing. Schulz accused us of being
undemocratic, totally ignoring the undemocratic ramming through of the Constitution.
Several other speakers joined in but the chairman totally ignored my attempts
to claim the floor. For about five minutes I stood in my place, clapping my
hands in approved fashion to gain attention but strangely not seen by the
chairman, or half a dozen of the secretariat sitting with him. I was only
claiming a right to reply - so much for democracy.
I have now
submitted a formal letter of complaint against the chairman for not letting me
speak, against Martin Schulz for accusing UKIP MEPs
for that which they did not do and against those who assaulted Sharon Bonici. I include below the last two paragraphs of that
letter.
“Our protest in the house yesterday
was against the denial of freedom of speech. The new constitution, being signed
in
Martin Schulz spoke this morning of
freedom of speech. I agree and I will work with him if he will promise to
campaign for a binding proposal that there shall be a simultaneous referendum
to ratify the constitution in all 27 countries of the EU”.
You may
recognize in these two paragraphs a phrase or two taken from my own speech to
Parliament, made that very evening at about a quarter to five. You might be
interest to know that we had no speaker assigned for this particular speech so,
following the interesting events of the morning, I volunteered.
Derek
Clark MEP
PROTESTS CENSORED IN EU PARLIAMENT
12 Dec 07
The European Parliament has censored its own television coverage
to avoid showing a serious protest in the debating chamber in
UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, one of the
prime movers of the protest, said: "This is the new EU in action, showing
the world a united face as they steamroll towards their own superstate
while totally refusing to allow anyone to see a different point of
view." Furious at the protests,
some MEPs resorted to rough tactics and one member of
the European People's Party dragged a female observer from the
SPEECH TO EU PARLIAMENT -
REGULATION ON POPULATION AND HOUSING CENSUS
10 Dec 07
Mr
President, in the employment committee on Nov 20th I was pleased to support the
rapporteur, Ona Juckneviciene, on her amendment 32 , to delete the
paragraph 1.3, 1.3.1 & 1.3.2 so as to exclude the intrusive and offensive
enquiry on women's first sexual act, which had been dressed up as 'Consensual
Union'. The commission representative at that time promised me that this, I
quote, "insensitive question", would be deleted from the text.
I took
that as a victory for me and for my party, UKIP, but mainly as a victory for common
sense and I was ready to congratulate the commission. By the way, Mr President,
this retraction proves that consensual union is about the sex act and not
cohabitation as others have tried to say. Otherwise why call it an insensitive
question and promise to withdraw it?
But when I
saw that the vote on this proposal had been indefinitely postponed, although
the debate goes ahead today, I smelt a rat.
I was
right. The latest version, printed out less than an
hour ago on my computer, shows that the text is by the Commission. It has a new
amendment 39 bearing no relation to the old Am 39, which was simply a technical
description. It is the 1.3.2 list we thought we had got rid of by amendment 32.
At the time I did not like the rapporteur's revised
compromise "A", only to delete 1.3.2, leaving 1.3 & 1.3.1 on
which to hang further questions.
I was
suspicious of that, I was right again.
This
objectionable, intrusive and insulting question has disgracefully been
re-introduced as amendment 39 against the commission promise. It is insulting
both for women and for the committee which has to debate it. I am more angry than I have been for a long time.
I ask all
colleagues to vote against amendment 39 and against the whole proposed
population census, so as to make sure.
Derek
Clark MEP
12 – 15 Nov 07
Highlight
of the week, French President addressing Parliament.
However,
the text as printed is not complete, Sarkozy spoke
for 40 minutes, and it is not exactly what he said in several places. My notes
made as he spoke show that, when he spoke of the French 'No' vote to the
referendum, end para 5, he actually said, "The
French No meant that French people were saying they wanted more
In paras 9 & 10 he said of the Dutch and French 'No' votes
that the people were
showing visible signs of a deep crisis in
Elsewhere
he contradicted himself, most notably about trade. We must not construct a
'Fortress Europe' he said, and went on to support various protectionist
measures.
You will
have noted that he will do everything he can to get the UK to ratify the
'Simplified Treaty' and you will have seen by now his attitude to another
French referendum. This came out at the conference of presidents on Tuesday
morning when he said that he would not have another referendum because that
would cause a British referendum and that would be a 'No' vote.
He also
said that he would press on with reforms in
Earlier in the day on Tuesday Barroso spoke,
outlining his vision for
Barroso
did comment on the Italian deportation of Romanian trouble makers, approving
that action – “we must crack down on criminal elements who abuse the
immigration system”. A
very interesting comment in the light of voting this morning, Thursday, which
included a resolution on 'Freedom of Movement'. Pandemonium. One
amendment carried a criticism of Frattini the Italian
minister - the author was 'disgraceful'. The PSE spokesman accused the EPP-ED
of speaking under pressure from 'Forza Italia' and
these two groups were bitterly opposed today, each side shouting down the
other's speakers. We remained passive onlookers.
Looking
forward to seeing many of you on Monday, unless the strikers have reached the airport !
Derek Clark MEP
SPEECH TO PARLIAMENT - QUARTERLY
STATISTICS ON COMMUNITY JOB VACANCIES
14 Nov 07
Information on changes in job vacancies to identify labour shortages
sounds fine but surely not just to compile statistics? It must be to enable employers to fill
vacancies and for workers to find jobs, both as quickly as possible, hence
quarterly.
Currently
national statistics are compiled by member states themselves and the Commission
seems to favour making use of that to set up a common framework under a Single
European Regulation, option C. So the EC craze to harmonize converts a simple
system into a bureaucratic and time consuming one.
The real
purpose is centralised control. Will we soon see a requirement for employers
and job seekers to consult an EU bureau? Down the road does this lead to job direction ?
It
certainly leads to a planned European economy spelling the end of the dream of
an increasingly prosperous
Worse,
amendment 8, if adopted, allows the collating agency to reject as inappropriate
national figures and substitute their own. They can thus create a false image
to suit the EC centralised controllers, misleading the people. So much for informing the citizen.
Finally,
Mr President, amendment 3 encourages the exclusion of agriculture, fishing and
forestry, now why should that be? I do not know much about forestry but the
Derek Clark MEP
22 Oct 07
On Tuesday the Lisbon Summit was debated, ie the
Constitution as signed by G. Brown.
It was claimed that Parliament would have more power, is that a good thing?
Socrates said that Parliament would be involved in the choice of Foreign
Secretary, sorry, High Representative, is that a good thing?
Barroso said that the EU would be able to shape
globalisation!
When the leaders of Political groups spoke it was obvious that the PPE and PSE
were enthusiastic for the constitution, although Schultz (PSE) said that we
should be talking about
citizens having the EU explained, when the EU should
be listening. We often find ourselves voting the same as NGL!
Which brings me to this week's chaos. Most votes are by 'show of hands' and if it
looks wrong then members shout "check" and it gets a check with the
electronic voting machine. Well, it does if any but UKIP / Ind-Dem
ask, they are very reluctant to listen to our
complaint. On Wednesday this checking showed the chairman had got it wrong on
no less than 6 votes, one of them turning out to be 450 to 180 the other way !
Graham Booth MEP, follows all this closely, making
notes, and he called a point of order to complain about it, calling it a farce.
It is, but he was shouted down. However, the chairman then explained that, yes,
mistakes are made, but that's always the case and we accept it
! So amendments are sometimes
recorded as passed when really they failed, and the other way about !
I don't think I have to explain the consequences of incorrect voting results.
This week, for instance, we voted on the control of pesticides in 3 different
reports. Just consider how false results here can make an impact on farming and
horticulture. And how do I now tell all the farmers and pesticide producers who
wrote to me recently that some of the regs about to
come out really should not be there at all !
Thursday the budget was voted on in two different reports. Enormous sums of
money approved, many items being voted on in blocks when it's yes or no to
perhaps a hundred or more budget lines at a time. Mind you with over 1600
amendments listed....
Yesterday I issued a press release via Don about Bill Newton-Dunn MEP, asking
for 250,000 euros for a study to "discover the obstacles to the creation
of a federal police force for the EU."
That line was included in one of the blocks and, since all 14 blocks
were passed with big majorities, it means that he got his money, and after the
study...?
Now do you want to know where your money goes ? You'll gather that I can't answer that in
full detail but this may be of interest. The Commission had already ordered
that 149 million euros be awarded as pre-accession funding. That's cash to
applicant countries to build big things with the Euro ring of stars on it to
show their people how wonderful the EU is and how they ought to join! Amendment
960 was to add another 30 million to that. Guess what, it passed
!
Have nice week end and I hope to see lots of you on 19 Nov (see Events page).
Derek Clark MEP
PRESS RELEASE -
24 Oct 07
MEP. Bill Newton-Dunn, Lib-Dem, has come under fire from a fellow East
Midlands MEP for asking for 250,000 Euros, equivalent to £173,000 to help
promote a study into making the EU wide police force a reality on the streets
of the
Derek Clark of UKIP said" I do not wish to see Euro-cops, armed with a
handgun and legal immunity swaggering around the East Midlands with a European
Arrest Warrant from a European prosecutor ready to drag one of my
constituents back to a country for a crime that may not even exist in the
UK"
If the EU Constitution is adopted in the UK, units of this new 'Euro Police
Force' which has been training in Vicenza, Italy for
several years,
could be seen in action here.
This 'Federal Police Force' would ensure that our own constabulary will carry
out their orders whilst they will remain answerable only to a central EU
department.
"I will be voting against Newton-Dunn's scheme" added Derek Clark MEP
Notes to Editors.
www.eurogendfor.eu
Don Ransome, Press Officer, 01205 311373 / 07971
700685
8 – 11 Oct
07
Documents
on "Economic Migrant Workers" include statements that -
"Public concern around the
perception that low-skilled immigrants may cause unemployment or reduce wages
seem to be contradicted by empirical evidence", and, "There are also frequent concerns that low-skilled migrants place
excessive demands on public services and are likely to be a drain on the
benefits systems."
The
document did not differentiate between the
We have
another case here of being lumped with all the rest. I find that they invent
systems to cope with something we have already covered for ourselves. But they
don't understand that we are ahead of them, so we have to take their rules and regs, either on top of our own, or in place of ours.
Needless to say such EU rules are frequently no advance on ours, often less
effective.
I made a
mistake on Tuesday evening. I went to a talk by Spidla
and Almunia, commissioners for Employment and
Economic Affairs respectively. It was on, 'the way forward', with Q & A,
nearly two hours of specious talk with no real specifics.
Voting in
the Plenary saw us opposing the Constitutional Affairs suggestions to revamp
the allocation of MEPs. We supported that which
retains the number of UK MEPs but without success. We
had to vote against several amendments which seemed to support
Derek
Clark MEP
24 – 27 Sept 07
My speech of
Tuesday evening is below.
Otherwise
the week is notable for the vote on Wednesday about farming and set aside.
Having forced farmers to set aside 10% of land, on which they may not grow food
crops, they now find there is a world shortage of cereals. So, for once, we
voted Yes to a report which is intended to set aside the set aside, so that an
increase in cereals can be grown. That becomes a question of market forces
operating, which is what we've been trying to tell them for years.
In between
meetings this morning I did a few minutes for Italian TV, all about the
constitution. I told them it is a constitution, not a "Reform Treaty"
as the interviewer tried to say, that we in UKIP wanted out, that there should
be a referendum but, no, not a referendum across the EU with the votes all
totalled up; we would be swamped. And I remarked that leaders do not represent
their electorate, which is why there should be referendums.
Sorry that
was not the BBC, but they were not here, you take what you can get!
Derek Clark MEP
SPEECH TO EU PARLIAMENT -
ESTABLISHING THE EUROPEAN INSTITUTION OF TECHNOLOGY
25 Sept 07
Adding an
Institute of Technology to stand with the existing universities sounds a good
idea. But that is not what is on offer here.
It is
proposed to set up an institution with the Commission vetting the board which
then selects the Knowledge and Innovation Centres with which it will at first
work but which it will, in time, subsume unto itself. It will even issue
qualifications bearing the EU logo with no reference to the universities of
which it has made use.
Surely
this is about innovation but you do not get that by wishing it by institution,
especially this one which, by encroaching on existing universities will stifle
enterprise, not promote it.
If you
want to encourage innovation look to individuals coming through universities.
Look to individuals in the SMEs, and offer resources
to help them develop and promote their ideas.
If you are
suggesting a network to enhance and spread ideas, don't bother, this community
already communicates across the world, ideas soon become international.
For
goodness sake drop this attempt to harmonise the universities and consider the
value of the varying contributions made by these different institutions. If you
have money to spare use it to support innovators, they work alone or in concert
with small teams. Europeans like Archimedes,
Derek
Clark MEP
3 – 6 Sept 07
My Monday
night speech has already been posted (see below).
Otherwise
the interest this week is the utterly banal and the evident bias of the EU. Both
of these arose in voting on Wednesday.
First the
banal. Would you believe that there were three successive reports on milk. Yes,
milk, from cows. All three by one obsessive MEP. Dehydrated milk, organisation
of the milk market and, additional rules for the milk market. Of slight
interest may be the fact that, two countries are in breach of the existing
rules; Estonia,- well OK,- but also that paragon of compliance, Sweden.
Then, in
Transport, they passed an amendment to ban the transport of liquids in barrels,
ie wooden barrels. Think beer, Port from Portugal,
Whiskey etc etc. Apparently they will have to turn
over to metal barrels with oak chippings in! Which brings me to,-
The Foglietta report on, "Reducing alcohol-related
harm", where they passed an amendment to introduce a schools' competition
for the best anti-alcohol campaign. All very well you might say but consider
another amendment to the same report which reads, "education campaign must
be impartial and independent and not involve interest-groups". Good,
except that this was rejected by a large majority!
Derek
Clark MEP
TOWARDS A SINGLE EUROPEAN LABOUR
MARKET
Speech to EU Parliament 3 Sept 07
Europe
comprises a widely diverse geography, terrain and climate giving rise to a wide
variety of life styles and of economies.
In
particular there has always been a variety of working practices and labour laws
have developed differently; different people work in different ways. Variety is
the spice of life and you tamper with this at your peril, for at the heart of
it is the issue of full employment.
The
Employment Committee is properly known as the Employment and Social Affairs
Committee and, surely, the greatest social benefit of all, both for the
individual and for society, is for people to have jobs.
In April
2005 Germany had 10% unemployment while the UK figure was 4.5%, but then the UK
has taken less of the EU’s labour laws.
Look at
some Eastern Europe countries which have high unemployment rates. These
countries have made progress, they have improved a little but the last thing
they want is to exchange the Soviet Command economy, run by the unelected
Commissars, for the centralised rulings of the unelected EU Commissioners.
Europe does not n