Brussels taking revenge on David Cameron's worthless veto
By Stuart Agnew Despite the triumphant homecoming following December's EU summit, the British prime minister's veto has only succeeded in ensuring that MEPS and officials plot against the UK – claims UK Independence Party MEP •The latest buzz word in the European Parliament, when the subject of the euro crisis comes up is "solidarity". With the usual complacency, the architects of the euro disaster now feel that solidarity will save their beloved single currency. What they actually mean is that everyone else will have to cough up to repair the damage, assuming said damage can be repaired - which I seriously doubt.
David Cameron's so-called veto at the last European summit has been dressed up by the spin doctors as the British prime minister boldly standing up for the United Kingdom and, particularly, for the City of London. In reality, it was not a real veto, as there was no actual treaty available for him to block.
I am a substitute on the European Parliament's Constitutional Affairs Committee - or AFCO – and I have attended a number of its meetings, during which the intent to do everything possible to undermine Cameron has been made very clear. During a joint meeting of the AFCO and the economic committees on January 16, a European Commission representative - in answer to some tough questions from me about the legality of the EU's institutions spending money on developing the new economic arrangements for a new treaty following the summit in December - admitted that secondary legislation would be used to circumvent Cameron's veto. The key legislative areas are the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union articles 3.1c, 4.2 and 5.1.
• Nick Clegg appears to be demanding that the Government moves much faster in its stated desire to bring in a tax free allowance of £10,000 per annum.
I have never understood and nobody has ever explained to me effectively how the Treasury can justify taxing somebody who is on the minimum wage.
It stands to reason that if one accepts the concept of a minimum wage then its justification must be to set it at the level that an individual over 21 needs to earn £6.08 per hour in order to live a half decent life. That is £12,646 per year on a 40 hour week. Not a great deal of money, and an amount that’s purchasing power is decreasing due to inflation, but a liveable wage according to the Low Pay Commission.
Clegg is calling for the first £10,000 of this to be tax free. This leaves the basic question, how and why does he think it is justified to tax those on such low wages that they are accorded minimum wages? It just doesn't make economic sense, due to the costs involved in administrating the system, nor does it make moral sense in that the Government is giving with one hand and taking away with the other. Either cut the minimum wage, or stop taxing the poorest working people.
UKIP's policy has been clear on this for years, but our thinking goes beyond that. We believe in a huge simplification of the tax system as it stands. One of the memorable aspects of the expenses scandal was that the then Chancellor, Alastair Darling, charged the taxpayer for advice on how to pay his taxes. If he didn't know how to sort out his tax affairs, then what chance do ordinary people have?
•The news that disgraced former European Commission President, Jacques Santer has been appointed as boss of the EU's bailout fund, improbably named the Special Purpose Investment Vehicle (Spiv), is 'almost laughable,' said Nigel Farage MEP, the UKIP leader.
"The lunatics have finally taken over the asylum," he said.
"The key to dealing with this crisis, as with any crisis in the markets is confidence. What sort of confidence can anybody have in somebody who was even the EU fired for incompetence."
The plain fact is that the name Santer is synonymous in the public mind with financial corruption. It is quite incredible that someone of his reputation and past actions would be appointed head of an EU bailout fund.
Farage went on: "When I first heard this news I thought it was an April Fool joke. But it is actually true. It is the taxpayers of the EU who are being taken for fools by this latest move. It just shows the EU does not care one iota about either public opinion or corruption in how the whole rotten institution is financed."
• And so it would appear Croatia will be the 28th member of the European Union, given that the bloc ratifies its application, which I think we can assume is a given.
News reports told of an outright majority but is this really the case? Well, as is often true of referenda, especially those associated with EU membership such as in the case of Ireland back in 2005 and of course in 2009 when the referendum was famously re-held in order to garner the right outcome, there is always another side to the story.
It was reported that while 33% of those voting chose NOT to join the EU, double the amount, 66% of the turn out, voted in favour of EU membership. So where's the grey area?
Well, first of all, it would appear Croatia had more voters than citizens.
According to the latest 2011 Population Census, Croatia has a total population of only 4.29 million, yet according to the Electoral Commission it has 4,504,765 voters over 18 years of age eligible to vote. Now that is a quickly ageing and expanding population!
Also, given that most Croats abstained from the referendum, resulting in record low participation of only 43%, even if all those who turned out voted in favour of EU membership, it would still represent a minority.
The MEP who is expected to be voted into the European parliament's top job on Tuesday has been accused of "demeaning" the institution by already forming his private office.
"Schulz started forming his cabinet six months ago. This shows the whole parliament election as the farce it is. It's a done deal, an agreed stitch-up already. Only parliament or a third world country would have someone of Schulz's temperament or calibre as president." - UKIP Leader Nigel Farage MEP By Martin Banks | The Parliament • German Socialist member Martin Schulz has been roundly condemned after it emerged he had already started forming his cabinet ahead of Tuesday's vote to elect parliament's next president.
MEPs will vote in a secret ballot to elect a successor to Jerzy Buzek, the outgoing president, during the parliamentary plenary in Strasbourg.
Schulz is the overwhelming favourite to win but there are two other candidates in the election, both of whom criticised Schulz for "prejudging" the outcome of the ballot.
They said it highlights the "stitch-up" for the post between parliament's mainstream political groups.
The German has also come under fire for teaming up with the leaders of the EPP and ALDE, the other two biggest groups in the parliament, to prevent the candidates from addressing MEPs ahead of the vote.
Having a single set of health standards across 27 legal systems, 22 different languages and a morass of different cultures will never be achieved, argues UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall.
• The political class has swung into action. The National Health Service, in Britain, will be replacing all the faulty PIP breast implants that they supplied and David Cameron has called on the private cosmetic surgery sector to do the same, claiming that they have a moral duty to do so. Of course, the private sector is an easy target for Cameron and this runs straight into a growing distaste for anybody who does business and has the temerity to be a success. The problem is that he is shooting the wrong target. And he is shooting it, knowing full well that the responsibility does not lie with the cosmetic surgery industry - which is highly regulated - but with those who control the regulators. Inevitably, when it comes to regulation today the buck stops in Brussels.
Mel Braham, chairman of the Harley Medical Group, has pointed the finger of blame at British regulator the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency. But that is not fair on the MHRA. The real responsibility lies in a combination of regulatory failure in France and then European Union laws that prevent British authorities from protecting United Kingdom consumers. Under EU law, the national regulatory authorities can grant their own companies and products a CE mark - which is supposed to provide a guarantee of quality. European law then forbids the MHRA from conducting further checks as all products that carry a CE mark are given free passage in the single market.
Home
.png){kind=small}
UK Independence Party in the European Parliament, Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, Rue Wiertz, 60 - 1047 Brussels
By Nigel Farage.png)
The MEP who is expected to be voted into the European parliament's top job on Tuesday has been accused of "demeaning" the institution by already forming his private office.
Having a single set of health standards across 27 legal systems, 22 different languages and a morass of different cultures will never be achieved, argues UKIP MEP Paul Nuttall.