Jan 6th 2006 - Report to East Midlands Regional Assembly

Report to East Midlands Regional Assembly  Jan 2006

The Prime Minister addressed Parliament on December 20th at the end of the UK’s Presidency of the EU. He concentrated on the budget saying that a deal was necessary to fund accession countries but it must be reformed for the future. He believed it enables Europe to cope with globalisation, boosting development and taking Europe forward.

However, very few leaders of political groups were satisfied with the budget proposals,  in spite of our £1 billion per year give-away. It was variously said, by leaders other than Ind-Dem, that it did not serve future research & development; that it was not credible as the PM had already signed papers to reduce the budget; that it made the crisis in Europe worse and that Parliament would reject it.

In any case EU budgets are hardly worth the paper they are written on with the auditors refusing to sign the books for the eleventh year running. The European Parliament takes little interest in proper accounting. Only 36 MEPs were present when the auditors presented their report for 2004, with no one from the UK government. Their report is complacent, claiming that incidents of malpractice will reduce, while admitting that 90% of EU activity was open to fraud. They stated that there was a proper assessment of expenditure, except in agriculture. Although there had been no access to the report prior to the debate most MEPs present said how good it was. The most common explanation by MEPs for the fraudulent loss of taxpayer’s money was that it was the fault of the member states, including the UK presumably. The East Midlands is therefore accused, in part, of financial impropriety. 

As the six months of the UK Presidency progressed a general feeling had emerged among MEPs of many countries and political persuasions that the UK was not doing enough, that no fresh initiatives were coming forward and that little had happened. The Prime Minister did little on his last appearance as President to dispel this feeling.

Employment Committee members would have felt this particularly keenly. On Nov 22nd  Mr Plaskitt attended the committee for the UK Department of Work and Pensions. Members questioned him closely, asking about the position of the Working Time Directive and of the Natural Radiation element in the Optical Radiation Directive. He was also tackled on progress in Works Councils, Temporary Workers, the European Social Model, globalisation and social inclusion. His only replies were that they were working in some areas with Austria as the next president, that the UK Presidency still had 6 weeks to run, so would we please wait, - “for Christmas?”, one member asked.

Christmas came on December 20th when the Prime Minister himself answered none of these points and, to date, no formal announcements has been made on these issues.

On November 17th the Reach Directive came up for approval. This is one of the most

far reaching directives yet attempted, attracting over 1000 amendments. After two and a

half hours voting the report was adopted. This was followed by a vote to approve the

legislative resolution but before this was called I rose on a point of order, quoting Rule

53. This states that the vote on the legislative resolution must be postponed until the

Commission has stated its position on each of Parliament’s amendments, or to inform the

President as to when it can do so.

Commissioner Dimas said that he would accept some amendments, reject others and

consider the remainder. In spite of this inadequate response the President of the day

immediately proceeded to the vote on the legislative resolution, in spite of my protests

and that of others

.

 This flagrant breach of its own rules illustrates further that the EU is determined to force

through whatever it wants, ruthlessly brushing Parliament aside if needs be. This follows

my statement of Oct 11th when I noted that the EU is prepared to push the proposed

European Constitution through regardless of the democratic referendums rejecting it.

We should have no part of this corrupt organisation.

Derek Clark   MEP (UKIP

Jan 6th 2006