UKIP Members of the European Parliament

• Another UKIP MEP falls foul of EU Parliament

10-Mar-2010

• For the second time in recent weeks a UKIP MEP has fallen foul of the European parliament.

Today William, Earl of Dartmouth, had his microphone switched off in the middle of a speech and an usher was instructed to remove him from the debating chamber in Strasbourg.

Lord Dartmouth was speaking in a debate on Arctic Policy. He was pointing out the absurdity of countries such as Greece and Cyprus having such a policy.

He want on to say that this was as bizarre as the appointment of Baroness Ashton as the EU's High Representative. At this point his microphone was switched off and he was ordered from the chamber by the chairperson - Yorkshire and Humberside Lib Dem MEP Diana Wallis.

Lord Dartmouth said he would be writing to the President of the parliament, Mr Jerzy Buzek, to complain about his treatment.

"UKIP has always said that this is not a proper Parliament as it is wholly intolerant of dissent" said Lord Dartmouth, "And today's events have proved that"

John Bufton calls on Baroness Ashton to resign

• 'Man on Clapham Omnibus' capable of making reasonable judgment

06-Mar-2010

• UKIP MEP Marta Andreasen reflects on the differences between the continental and the British mindsets after participating last week in the first face-to-face exchange of views on the Hedge Fund Directive (AIFM) between the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.

In her article Ms Andreasen observes that during discussions over the issues of liability of depositories "we could see English common law rubbing up against what I will call positive Roman law. Would the depository be responsible for losses unless they could PROVE they were not negligent, or would a common law standard of 'reasonable care' be applied?"

"The system of English law is very strong because it is based on the needs and actions of a reasonable man. On the contrary the continental or Roman legal system is prescriptive: you do what you are told and do not think too much," Ms Andreasen writes.

"Here is the very nub of the problem with the EU. British people do not need more and standardised legislation, but rather can decide for themselves because they know they may be called on to explain themselves and consequently responsibility is ingrained in them. It works for them: why must they change it?"

"The discussion brought the European Public Prosecutor back to my mind - the British being judged on continental laws!" Marta Andreasen concludes.

Read entire article: "Reasonable care - The Man on the Clapham Omnibus"

• Buzek explains himself: 'It was a special case'

05-Mar-2010

• The President of the European Parliament, Jerzy Buzek, has justified his actions against UKIP MEP Nigel Farage by explaining that Mr Van Rompuy's visit to the parliament was "a special case" and it was therefore "necessary to give such a strong penalty".

"I proposed to Mr Farage to apologise, but he didn't like to do that," explained Mr Buzek. "First time in our history we had such a person nominated by the European Council as a President of the Council. It was a special case. It was necessary to give such a penalty," insisted Mr Buzek.

• The price of free speech

04-Mar-2010

By Nigel Farage MEP - De Standaard
• Exercising one's right to free speech is, for all of us, a little more expensive today than it was yesterday, and I don't mean the €3000 fine that was imposed on me for representing my constituents.

If a parliament has to have any meaning, its members must be free to say what they think. Okay, there are some restrictions on free speech which are there for the public good: I should not be able to incite violence or hatred. But that is not what I did.

The European Parliament thinks I should make several apologies for my comments. To take them in order, the first apology should be to the 'Grey Mouse', Herman van Rompuy, because I apparently hurt his feelings.

Mr van Rompuy is probably as unknown to most Belgians as he is to the rest of Europe, but, despite this, horse-trading between the governments of the EU's member states ensured that he became President of the European Council. The original idea was to have as President a man who would stop the traffic in Washington and Beijing, dynamically representing Europe on the world stage. Mr van Rompuy would have difficulty stopping the traffic in Brussels.

Given the difference between how the idea was sold to the people, and what the people have ended up with, it is not unreasonable to point out the difference between the charismatic, high profile leader of 500 million Europeans that was promised, and Mr van Rompuy. Nobody elected him, he is answerable to nobody, there is no mechanism to get rid of him and his appointment overrode previous no votes in referendums in France, Holland and Ireland which rejected the creation of his post.

• Damp Rag costs €3000

02-Mar-2010

• UKIP MEP Nigel Farage was informed this afternoon by Jerzy Buzek, president of the European Parliament, that he had decided to fine him €3000 for his comments relating to Herman van Rompuy and Belgium.

The fine represents 10 days pay, and is the maximum allowable under the rules of the European Parliament. Mr Buzek imposed it after Mr Farage declined earlier today to apologise for his comments.

Mr Farage said, "Free speech in the European Parliament is very expensive. €3000 for a damp rag."

He announced that he intends to appeal against his sentence.

Statement by Nigel Farage MEP [Video]

[UPDATE - 3 March]

Nigel Farage vs. The President of the European Parliament

Covering Letter to the Bureau of the European Parliament (03.03.2010)
Notice of Appeal

• Farage offers apology to bank clerks in free speech row

02-Mar-2010

Press conference video

• UKIP MEP Nigel Farage, facing demands from European Parliament president Jerzy Buzek to apologise to Herman van Rompuy, the European Parliament, and the 'nation of Belgium', has offered to apologise to any bank clerks who were offended by his remarks.

Speaking after a meeting with Mr Buzek, Mr Farage said that he had been asked to 'apologise to the whole world' simply for speaking his mind and representing the interests of his constituents.

He said, "This is clearly an issue of freedom of speech. The same rulebook that is being thrown at me also contains the guarantee that Members freedom of speech should not be undermined.

"I will appeal any ruling by Mr Buzek, who clearly has a different interpretation of freedom of speech to me."

Mr Farage said that the Belgian Prime Minister, Yves Leterme had in 2006 described French Belgians as 'intellectually incapable' of learning Flemish, and said that all that united his countrymen were the King, football and beer. Mr Leterme was among those demanding that Mr Farage apologise for describing Belgium as a 'non-country'.

Mr Farage said that his comments had sparked a debate about Mr van Rompuy's position as unelected president, and defended his comments as 'realistic, truthful and a necessary part of waking the people up to van Rompuy's plans for an economic government of the EU'.

"Compared to what is said in parliaments across the world, compared to what has been said about me in this parliament, my comments were mild. This is about free speech, the right to say what is not popular with the political elite, and the right to represent my constituents as I see fit.

"After all, unlike Mr van Rompuy, I have been elected."

See also:

Who are you, Mr President? (Nigel Farage in plenary, 24.11.2010)

« Read the other news

Videos