22 September 2008

Sept 22nd - 25th 2008 Brussels Commentary Pleanary session

Brussels Commentary Pleanary session Sept 22nd - 25th 2008 As you all know this should be Strasbourg but, for the second time running, it had to be transferred to Brussels due to the ceiling of the debating chamber in Strasbourg having collapsed. This happened on Aug 7th and, apparently, had we been present UKIP MEPs in particular would have been engulfed by over 7 tons of material. Repairs costing 6 million euros are now, we are told, complete so back to Strasbourg we go. Or do we? Due to inadequate information,- this is the EU you know-, we do not know the full story. Serious claims are being made that there is asbestos in the construction of the building and that it was constructed from steel of a sort which failed in another building. Fire escapes are said to be inadequate and so it goes on. Never-the-less the president of Parliament assured us this week that all was well. But is it so when all he said was, "trust me, its OK". Of course all parliamentary business should be conducted here in Brussels. The building contains more facilities, all the parliamentary assistants are based here and those that are detailed to attend Strasbourg are on an expenses paid "mission". The Commission building is ten minutes away and all the lobbyists come here, media too. I now learn that the cost of conducting business in Strasbourg is 30% more per day than in Brussels. With Brussels being easier for all but a handful of MEPs to get to there would seem to be an unanswerable case for a "Single Seat" in Brussels. It was written into a legally enforceable document at the 1993 Edinburgh summit, signed by John Major, that 12 sessions per year must be held in France. A while ago a case to take one week to Brussels led to court where the ECJ upheld the Edinburgh decision. So there we are, and I will see that my hard hat finds its way to Strasbourg for October! The high spot, or is that the low point, of business this week centred around the several reports included in the joint debate on Maritime transport. See my speech on that which I have recast as an article for the party web site. Otherwise there is the other matter of my second speech this week on the Social Package,- Cross-Border healthcare. The material for this was insubstantial and difficult to pick the bones out of it; it was been invented to cast a smoke screen over the Irish referendum result. To a brighter note. On Wednesday Parliament received the Commission Work Program for 2009 and when put to the vote it was rejected by 306 - 102 with 207 abstentions. Now what do they do? My guess,- a helping of fudge. Derek Clark MEP Brussels Sept 25th 2008

Read the full news article

9 September 2008

Sept 9th - 10th 2008 Brussels Commentary Employment Committee

Brussels Commentary Employment Committee Sept 9th - 10th 2008 On Wednesday,- a solid three hour voting session. Even the chairman lost his way, several times, during one report of 18 pages crammed full with over 200 amendments. That was one report of 8 voted on in that time. Now just consider, did everyone get it right, from their point of view, every time? Difficult at best but made much worse by the rapporteur combining several amendments together in compromises. Compromises are often done overnight, so the voting lists are altered and final version not seen until the morning. Its almost impossible for an MEP to make out the voting lists, especially this time having to plough through the documents; 6 books of 130+ pages each. Our assistants make out the voting lists and Ralph tells me that the last ones came through at 11.00 pm last night! Voting always begins at 9.00 am! Elsewhere you can see my two contributions to the employment committee debates. that was yesterday, Tuesday. Responses were quite revealing. For the first one, cracking down on employers of illegal immigrants, the rapporteur was Mrs Bauer. Her response was to say that the report did not deal with illegal work and that I ought to understand that employers had responsibilities and they should observe them. Now, I did stretch a point a little in using the fruit picker example. The directive, if passed, is about the chain of sub-contractors so when does the chain of picker, farmer, trucker, packager, wholesaler and shop cease being sub-contractors. In some cases the producer is tied to the retailer, via a freezer. In the event the committee voted down the amendment about illegal working not invalidating a contract and the one about not prosecuting those who provide assistance to illegal immigrants to enter. That leaves the rest, including all those in the chain being responsible and what I did not address; those employing illegals as domestic servants will be treated very lightly. Guess who, over here, employ servants! The rapporteur for the qualified people report took issue with me clearly thinking I was against immigrants, in spite of what I had said. He informed me that such qualified people had the right to remain after five years residence, quite. Very difficult to make these MEPs understand. Or do they just not want to? Derek Clark Brussels Sept 10th 2008

Read the full news article