UKIP Peer Clashes With Government over EU Summit Statement

In a debate in the House of Lords on 23rd June, the UKIP Peer, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, supported by independent Labour Peer, Lord Stoddart of Swindon, clashed with the Government over its statement on the recent EU summit. Lord Pearson chided Baroness Royall of Blaisdon, (for the Government) for suggesting that the European Parliament has any democratic legitimacy. Lord Pearson said: "After all, the majority of law which is now imposed on this country is proposed in secret by the European Commission and passed in secret by the Council, and this Parliament can do nothing about it".

Lord Pearson also challenged the Government on the issue of whether the new institutions being created by the EU to control financial services would have supremacy over the UK's Financial Services Authority. Baroness Royall did not answer the latter question and attempted to suggest that Britain's representation in the European Council and Parliament give European laws democratic legitimacy.

Lord Stoddart of Swindon exposed the serious weakness in her argument by pointing out that: "...even if the British Members (in the European Parliament) voted as a group, they could always be outvoted by over seven to one. Decisions that might be inimical to this country’s best interests could be passed, irrespective of the views of the British Government or the British people".

He went on to raise with the Baroness the very serious concerns expressed by Stuart Fraser, the chairman of the City of London Corporation’s policy and resources committee, in the Daily Telegraph (23.6.09), about the ceding of control over financial regulation to EU institutions.

Baroness Royall accepted Lord Stoddart's depiction of the way the European Parliament voting can work against British interests by saying: "that is what the European Union is all about. I do not deny that." She avoided answering Lord Stoddart's second point about control over regulation by saying that she had not read the relevant article.

For the full statement and debate click here

Extracts:

Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, I trust the noble Baroness will not mind if I suggest that she was perhaps a little disingenuous when she suggested that the European Parliament carries any form of democratic legitimacy. After all, the majority of law which is now imposed on this country is proposed in secret by the European Commission and passed in secret by the Council, and this Parliament can do nothing about it.

As to the Statement itself, perhaps I may put two questions to the noble Baroness. First, on the new European supervisory powers over our financial services, will the Financial Services Authority be supreme in those areas or will the new EU bodies be supreme? It really does not help to be told in the Statement that there will be no fiscal change, because if these new European regulations drive our leading City practitioners overseas, surely that will have a devastating effect on our financial and therefore fiscal position. Therefore, can she confirm who will be the boss in future—the British Government and the City of London or this new financial supervisory set-up?

Finally, perhaps I may remind the noble Baroness of the words of Mr Jens-Peter Bonde, the leading Danish politician, who has said that all the guarantees given to Denmark when Denmark was forced to vote again on the Maastricht treaty have been broken. All those guarantees have been broken. So, really, it comes down to the question of what is the status of this protocol. Let us suppose that there is not a treaty of accession for Croatia . Where will Ireland be left then? Surely the most monstrous deception is being practised on the Irish people and I very much regret that the British Government have gone along with It.

Baroness Royall of Blaisdon: My Lords, on democratic deficits, I respectfully point out that 80 per cent of European legislation, I think, is now made by co-decision. As the noble Lord well knows, co-decision means that it is agreed not only by the European Parliament, in which we have democratically elected representatives, but by the European Council, which is made up of members of this Government. So there is a very strong democratic element in the way in which European laws are made. The European Commission only proposes.

As for the views of Jens-Peter Bonde, I have long known Mr Bonde and his anti-European views. However, he has always sent his children to a European school in Brussels . I think that that is an interesting point, since there seems to be something to do with the European Union that he likes. I note his views on Denmark but I have more trust in Europe and the institutions of the European Union than he does.

I do not think that there has been any kind of monstrous—I cannot recall the word that the noble Lord used.

A noble Lord: Conspiracy.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Lord Stoddart of Swindon : My Lords, first, the noble Baroness the Leader of the House, in her reply to the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, pointed out that 80 per cent of decisions were made by co-decision with the European Parliament. I would point out that even if the British Members voted as a group, they could always be outvoted by over seven to one. Decisions that might be inimical to this country’s best interests could be passed, irrespective of the views of the British Government or the British people.

Secondly, I noted the reply of the noble Baroness to the noble Lord, Lord Woolmer. Has she seen that in this morning’s Daily Telegraph, Stuart Fraser, the chairman of the City of London Corporation’s policy and resources committee, said:

“We have lost the broader argument about ceding control of UK rules to the EU, though we are happy that some concessions have been made”.

He went on:

“We now still have a situation where binding arbitration dictated by Brussels could overrule the UK ’s Financial Services Authority”.

That is in direct opposition to what the noble Baroness and the Government believe. I would like to know whether the corporation has been consulting and whether the Government will listen to any representations that it might make.

I have one more question. The Commission believes that these changes can be brought in under Article 95 of the EC treaty on the approximation of laws to operate the single market. Is that so, or will Parliament have to ratify—and first discuss—the proposals, and then ratify any treaty that may be needed to bring these proposals into effect?

I HAVEN'T SEEN THE FILM BUT.....

Dutch MP Geert Wilders was refused entry to the United Kingdom on Thursday afternoon. Wilders had been invited by Lord Pearson of Rannoch, a UKIP peer in the House of Lords, and crossbench peer Baroness Cox. Wilders's controversial film, Fitna, was due to be shown at the public meeting in the presence of a few people concerned by the threat of Islamic terrorism, plus invited media.

Three things need to be said, here. First, an invitation to a speaker does not mean that one agrees with everything that the speaker says. Lord Pearson said that he thought that the issue that Wilders wanted to raise, and on which he is campaigning in the Netherlands (where his party has nine seats in the 150 seat parliament), was one of the most important issues of our time. However, Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox said that they did not agree with Wilders that the Koran should be banned :

“Our western society, and indeed the majority of peaceful Muslims, are being intimidated far too much by violent Islamists. On this occasion, the British government is guilty of appeasement. We do not agree with Geert Wilders that the Koran should be banned – even in Holland where Mein Kampf is banned. We don't want it banned but discussed – particularly by the majority Muslim community; and specifically as to whether it may promote or justify – or has promoted or justified – violence. We are therefore promoting freedom of speech”

Second, anyone who has seen the film must surely agree that it does not incite religious hatred. Offensive it may be to many, but that is not a ground to call for its author to be banned from putting his point of view. If everything that is potentially offensive is banned there will not be much that we could talk about. That is the danger of proposals to outlaw offensive material. In reality, would not such laws be useful for one side to censor the other side of a debate?

Third, at least three prominent commentators on the left of politics, including David Miliband no less, have condemned the film while openly admitting that they haven’t actually seen it. Keith Vaz, on Newsnight, admitted he had not seen it. Ken Livingstone admitted he had not seen it. David Miliband, speaking to the BBC, said he had not seen it, though this didn’t prevent him from condemning the film in the strongest terms :

“The Home Secretary made a decision an individual case as she is required to do. He was invited to screen his program … which includes – his film – which includes extreme anti-Muslim hate. And we have very clear laws in this country. We have profound commitment to freedom of speech borne over hundreds of years. But there is no freedom to cry fire in a crowded theater. There is no freedom to stir up hate, religious and racial hatred according to the laws of the land. And what the Home Secretary did is follow the laws of the land [...] He applied to come and screen his film. And the Home Secretary made a decision on that case given the hate filled nature of that film.

Q. Freedom of speech issue though isn't it? The man who invited him calls it appeasement. He means appeasement of radical Muslim parties and factions in this country, who would undoubtedly would have made a big noise about it, but we are now appeasing them by stopping the man from even entering the country.

A. No, that is an appalling misrepresentation of the truth. A hate filled film which is designed to stir up religious and racial hatred…

Q. Have you seen the film?

A. No I haven't seen the film.

Q. Well how do you know what precisely what the film is like?

A. You and I know precisely what's in film, because it's no secret what's in the film. But a hate-filled film, designed to stir up religious and racial hatred in this country is contrary to our laws”

How exactly can David Miliband “know precisely” what is in the film if he hasn’t seen it? Shouldn’t the Foreign Secretary take a more scientific approach to this – look at the evidence and base his decision on the evidence?

UKIP does not campaign on an anti-Islam ticket and, so far as I know, the initiative was that of Lord Pearson and Baroness Cox. But, once it becomes an issue of free speech, and so long as there is no incitement to violence, the right of Geert Wilders to put his views should be upheld.

Although disagreeing with the controversial Dutch MP Geert Wilders view to ban The Koran, UKIP have always fought for freedom of speech, and were disgusted by the UK governments decision to stop him entering Britain