The European Parliament in January 2008

A mixed bag of legislation this month, although the most striking event concerned none of it. So, first, what do you do when an MEP deliberately says something he knows will be offensive in the plenary session of the Parliament? At the second January session some 40 MEPs protested that their freedom to demonstrate about the lack of referenda on the Lisbon treaty was being curtailed under procedural decisions taken by the Parliament’s President, a German Christian Democrat, Hans – Gerd Poettering. Their dissent, apart from booing the President of the Commission and holding up placards calling for a referendum, had taken the form of calling for all parliamentary votes to be done electronically (costing time and some money) and taking the floor, one after another, to give explanations of vote, thus potentially disrupting the parliament’s timetable.

 

One of their leaders, Daniel Hannan, a Conservative MEP, made a speech against the new procedural restrictions in which he said that Poettering’s action reminded him of the action taken by the Reichstag in March 1933, when it adopted Hitler’s “Enabling Act”. This law, adopted by the Nazi-dominated Reichstag, spelled the end of democracy in Germany. It was true that Hannan hedged the reference about with “Were it not for the great regard I have for you Mr President, I should be reminded of…etc,etc” but the reference was there and the damage was done, as he meant it to be. Indeed he had rehearsed the same argument in a meeting with other Conservative MEPs previously, and had been warned not to use it.

 

The Parliament erupted in protest, and Joseph Daul, the leader of the EPP-ED group, of which Hannan is a member, said he would be expelled from it. What will happen next? If Hannan is allowed to stay in the EPP-ED group, after a possible apology, he will remain a source of disruption because his real aim is to take Britain out of the EU. If he does not apologise or his apology is refused, then he will go and sit with the non-attached MEPs. From there he will continue to advocate the idea that in future Conservative MEPs should not belong to the EPP-ED group (the largest in the Parliament), and that, if we are unable to form an alternative group (we have really run out of Bulgarians), then we should all sit as non-attached members.

 

This is dangerous nonsense. We would look like unwanted outcasts and would lose all influence. What a position for one of Europe’s major parties to be in just as the Parliament acquires new powers! Yet for Hannan the non-attached position has one advantage: it is near the exit.

 

Earlier the Parliament addressed the issue of the fishing “by-catch” – that is the quantity of fish caught but thrown overboard because EU rules designed to protect fish stocks prohibit the landing of under-size and over-quota fish. MEPs led by the British Conservative fisheries spokesman, Struan Stevenson, went further than the initial Commission proposal and called for a total ban on discards.

 

How to make this work and yet preserve the stocks? One idea is to have a voluntary system where fishing grounds will be closed for a 3-week period if skippers identify a high abundance of undersized cod. This is already happening in Scottish waters. Otherwise the answer, for southwest waters, is to couple a ban on discards with incentives to boats using more selective gear: this might include preferential access to fishing grounds for longer periods. Steps would also have to be taken to ensure that fish otherwise discarded could not be marketed directly – and no one knows how.

 

In fact the issue illustrates the gap between MEPs’ claims and the actual situation. Unless and until the Lisbon treaty come into force MEPs are merely consulted on fisheries policy and cannot, as of right, affect the outcome. The treaty would give the Parliament powers equivalent to those of fisheries ministers and the two institutions would have to hammer out an agreement – which might not be a bad idea since successive councils of fisheries ministers have fumbled the job of protecting fish stocks. I note that Jim Portus, CEO of the South Western Fish Producers Organisation, believes a simple discard ban is a non-starter, and puts the emphasis on better fishing gear technology – if there are any British boats left to use it.

 

After fish, post offices. MEPs gave agreement to the Postal Services Directive. This confirms that the remaining postal service monopolies in Europe will expire by 2013. The market in the UK is already fully liberalised and there are now 17 postal operators in this country. It is therefore quite wrong to place the sole blame for post office closures in the UK on the new directive - as some do. In fact Royal Mail has suffered because until this directive becomes law there is not a level playing field for it to try and operate elsewhere in the EU. It’s more accurate to blame the government, which has handed business previously carried out by the Post Offices to banks and building societies without giving small and rural POs compensating support.

 

Then patio heaters. Did MEPs vote to ban them because of their carbon emissions? No: this was not a proposal for a new law. It was a non-legislative report on the Commission’s proposed Action Plan for Energy Efficiency in which MEPs urged the Commission to set timetables for withdrawing from the market all the least energy-efficient appliances – such as patio heaters. So we are still far away from freezing as we eat out.

 

If you are a Conservative party member and live in the southwest you will soon (though I suspect no-one has told you yet) have the chance to vote by post to rank the candidates for the Euro-elections next year. The candidates are(ladies first): Julie Girling, Zehra Zahidi, Don Collier and Michael Dolley. One person has withdrawn so another name will be added. Giles Chichester will be automatically top of the poll as sitting MEP. The top woman will be automatically number 2 on the list. Just my luck that such favourable rules apply as I retire.