Question Rules on MEP's switching party allegiance

Nyge21 · 14-09-2008, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chikrodah

MEPs are not exempt from legal prosecution for the time they are MEPs, let alone "for all time". Ask Ashley Mote - it took several years, but the DWP finally got him into court, while he was still an MEP.

Ah! But Ashley Mote only got into court because it was a relatively "minor" offence - and still it took a huge effort on behalf of the prosecution to achieve even this. Had it been mass murder (or any crime that was deemed particularly serious - and had a longer prison "tariff" than his conviction), he would almost certainly have been exempt from any prosecution! The EU institutions would (and do) demand this. After all, they are full of criminals of the worst kind, where would it be if the truth were to get out into court?
The EU institutions would be in tatters, through lack of workers. That's why immunity and huge payouts (bribes) to ensure the s*** doesnt hit the fan is their top priority.
Of course, it is common knowledge (and truthful beyond reproach) that the criminality at the heart of the EU knows no bounds - indeed several senior politicians have been assasinated by EU insiders over the years for simply suggesting they might not support some part of the EU master plan.

Anyone who supports the EU elite is supporting criminality.

Petrina · 14-09-2008, 07:23 PM

"Of course, it is common knowledge (and truthful beyond reproach) that the criminality at the heart of the EU knows no bounds - indeed several senior politicians have been assasinated by EU insiders over the years for simply suggesting they might not support some part of the EU master plan."

Do tell us more ! Do you mean assasinate as in kill or as in character assasination ,NYGE 21 ?

chikrodah · 14-09-2008, 08:20 PM

Quote:

II.TEXTS GOVERNING, AND GENERAL REMARKS ON, THE IMMUNITY ACCORDED TO MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
1. Articles 9 and 10 of the Protocol of 8 April 1965 on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities read as follows:

'Article 9

Members of the European Parliament shall not be subject to any form of inquiry, detention or legal proceedings in respect of opinions expressed or votes cast by them in the performance of their duties.

Article 10

During the sessions of the European Parliament, its Members shall enjoy:

(a) in the territory of their own State, the immunities accorded to members of their parliament;

(b) in the territory of any other MemberState, immunity from any measure of detention and from legal proceedings.

Immunity shall likewise apply to Members while they are travelling to and from the place of meeting of the European Parliament.

Immunity cannot be claimed when a Member is found in the act of committing an offence and shall not prevent the European Parliament from exercising its right to waive the immunity of one of its Members.’

2. The procedure applicable to the European Parliament proper is governed by Rules 6 and 7 of Parliament’s Rules of Procedure. The relevant provisions are worded as follows:

‘Rule 6 : Waiver of immunity
1. In the exercise of its powers in respect of privileges and immunities, Parliament shall seek primarily to uphold its integrity as a democratic legislative assembly and to secure the independence of its Members in performance of their duties.

2. Any request addressed to the President by a competent authority of a MemberState that the immunity of a Member be waived shall be announced in Parliament and referred to the committee responsible.
(...)

Rule 7 : Procedures on immunity
1. The committee responsible shall consider without delay and in the order in which they have been submitted requests for the waiver of immunity or requests for the defence of immunity and privileges.

2. The committee shall make a proposal for a decision which simply recommends the adoption or rejection of the request for the waiver of immunity or for the defence of immunity and privileges.

3. The committee may ask the authority concerned to provide any information or explanation which the committee deems necessary for it to form an opinion on whether immunity should be waived or defended. The Member concerned shall be given an opportunity to be heard; he may bring any documents or other written evidence he deems relevant. He may be represented by another Member.

(...)

7. The committee may offer a reasoned opinion about the competence of the authority in question and about the admissibility of the request, but shall not, under any circumstances, pronounce on the guilt or otherwise of the Member nor on whether or not the opinions or acts attributed to him or her justify prosecution, even if, in considering the request, it acquires detailed knowledge of the facts of the case.

(...)’

3. Since its first five-year term, Parliament has followed a consistent practice that has enabled it to work out certain general principles laid down definitively in the resolution adopted at the sitting of 10 March 1987 on the basis of the report by Mr Donnez on the draft Protocol revising the Protocol on the Privileges and Immunities of the European Communities of 8 April 1965 in respect of Members of the European Parliament (Doc. A2-121/86)(2). Regarding these general principles, it might be useful to mention those which are relevant in this particular instance, namely:

Purpose of immunity
Immunity is not a privilege granted to any one Member of Parliament, but rather safeguards the independence of Parliament and its Members in relation to other authorities. By virtue of that principle, it matters little when the facts at issue occurred: in other words, whether they took place before or after the Member in question was elected to Parliament, the only imperative to take into consideration is to protect Parliament as such by protecting its Members.

Extent of the duration of immunity
The Court of Justice has twice been called upon to interpret the words ‘During the sessions of the European Parliament’ appearing in Article 10 of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities of the European Communities. The inference to be drawn from the two judgments handed down by the Court (on 12 May 1964, in Case 101/63 Wagner v Fohrmann and Krier [1964] ECR 397, and on 10 July 1986, in Case 149/85 Wybot v Faure [1986] ECR 2403) is that Parliament holds a one-year annual session during which time its Members enjoy the immunity provided for in the Protocol, including when the session has been adjourned. Furthermore, its purpose implies per se that immunity must apply to Members for the entire duration of their term of office, whether a case concerning it relates to the institution of proceedings, steps to be taken in a judicial investigation, enforcement measures, judgments already delivered, or appeal proceedings or actions to have a judgment set aside.

Independent force of the immunity of Members of the European Parliament in relation to the immunity accorded to members of national parliaments
The fact that Article 10, first paragraph, point (a), of the Protocol on the privileges and immunities refers to the immunities accorded to members of national parliaments does not debar the European Parliament from laying down its own rules on waiver of immunity. Parliament’s decisions have served gradually to shape a coherent concept of immunity specific to the European Parliament, which in principle applies independently of the various practices employed in the national parliaments. This ensures that Members are not treated differently according to their nationality. Consequently, even if the immunity accorded by national law is taken into consideration, the European Parliament observes its own unchanging principles in order to determine whether or not a Member’s immunity should be waived.

Immunity is intended to protect the freedom which Members have to express their opinions and engage in political debate. The committee responsible for dealing with the matter has therefore always proceeded according to the basic principle that whenever incriminated actions fall under the heading of, or are related directly to, a Member’s political activity, immunity is not waived.

Cases in the above category include, for example, those in which opinions deemed to form part of a Member’s political activity are expressed during demonstrations, at public rallies, in political publications, in the press, in a book, on television, through the act of signing a political tract, or even before a court of law.

In addition to this principle, there are other considerations which militate in favour of or against waiver of immunity, in particular the ‘fumus persecutionis’, that is to say, the presumption that criminal proceedings stem from an intention to damage a Member’s political activity. As indicated in the explanatory statement contained in the Donnez report, the concept of fumus persecutionis means essentially that immunity is not waived when it is suspected that criminal proceedings are intended at bottom to undermine the political activity of the Member concerned.
It follows that, barring evidence to the contrary, when proceedings are instituted by a political opponent, immunity is not waived if there is a compelling reason to believe that the aim of the prosecution is to harm the Member in question and not to right a wrong. Similarly, when the circumstances in which proceedings have been commenced are such as to suggest that the sole purpose is to harm a Member, immunity is not waived.

Of course, this is a direct quote from a EP decision, so you may decide it's biased...

gc · 14-09-2008, 08:36 PM

The MEPs statute states that they are not beholden to any entity. They can cross the floor, resign whips, whatever. The EP will protect their position.

Interestingly, Ganley stated recently in Brussels that his legal people were looking at ways to "lock candidates in", so that once elected on his ticket they could resign the whip or cross the floor.

Another indication of his lack of understanding of how the EU institutions work. A bit fascistic, if you ask me. What other party in the UK does that? (Or seeks to do that - that can't do it, nor should they be able to do it in a democracy...)

Nyge21 · 14-09-2008, 09:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Petrina

"Do tell us more ! Do you mean assasinate as in kill or as in character assasination ?

Well both actually, but not necessarily the same person at the same time! When it involves killing (they try the less drastic measures first), it doesnt necessarily mean its an obvious assasination - clearly the intention is not to make it too obvious. Deception/ Deceit is the modus operandi of the EU after all.

For the UK, check out John Smith (labour leader 1990s) - he was a likely candidate. You might have to do a bit of digging, and he's just one of several (from various parties/ countries)

Indeed, it perhaps explains why national political leaders are so frightened of standing up to the EU in recent decades.

Jeff · 14-09-2008, 09:10 PM

Maybe we should get Brown to stand up to the EU and save his own MPs from having to do the job?

Aardvark · 14-09-2008, 09:49 PM

Nyge21, What do you mean about John Smith? Are you suggesting he was assassinated? Where is your proof? A link, any link, would be good enough.

SponPlague · 14-09-2008, 10:06 PM

This was all looked into over Michael Holmes. The UK screwed up implementation of the legislation (what's new)?

Fact is: A UK MEP is elected on the list system. BUT: If he resigns a party whip, he remains an MEP until he personally resigns: This worked to favour Holmes and Mote.

If you suggest it is biased against UKIP, they cackle uproariously

gumshoe · 15-09-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Geoffrey Collier

Gumshoe: You are confusing separate things. MPs' are elected on a personal vote. MEPs' are elected on a party ticket, it is the party not the individual which receives the vote.
MP's may represent a party, but it is THEIR name against which you put your vote. With MEPs' you put your vote against the party name. This is a crucial difference.

Problems arise, as I stated to Penguin, when other considerations have to be accommodated. .

I didn't intend to confuse the two separate things. I was trying to point out that although for the EU one votes for the Party and for Westminster one votes for the individual, the effect is the same.

The reason for mentioning Bob Spink is that although he claims that people voted for him, it is unlikely he would have been elected had it not been for the Conservative Party machine and the rank and file members of that party.

Geoffrey Collier · 15-09-2008, 09:30 AM

gumshoe: You are possibly correct, but that does not affect the principle of a personal vote and a party one.

14-09-2008, 08:36 PM	#14 (permalink)
gc Senior Member Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 603	The MEPs statute states that they are not beholden to any entity. They can cross the floor, resign whips, whatever. The EP will protect their position. Interestingly, Ganley stated recently in Brussels that his legal people were looking at ways to "lock candidates in", so that once elected on his ticket they could resign the whip or cross the floor. Another indication of his lack of understanding of how the EU institutions work. A bit fascistic, if you ask me. What other party in the UK does that? (Or seeks to do that - that can't do it, nor should they be able to do it in a democracy...) Last edited by gc; 14-09-2008 at 08:47 PM.

14-09-2008, 09:10 PM	#16 (permalink)
Jeff Member Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 376 Party: Free England Party	Maybe we should get Brown to stand up to the EU and save his own MPs from having to do the job? Last edited by Jeff; 14-09-2008 at 09:15 PM.

14-09-2008, 09:49 PM	#17 (permalink)
Aardvark Moderator Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Oxonia Posts: 4,249	Nyge21, What do you mean about John Smith? Are you suggesting he was assassinated? Where is your proof? A link, any link, would be good enough. __________________ When in Woking do as the Wokes do. "I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

14-09-2008, 10:06 PM	#18 (permalink)
SponPlague Uber Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Zurich Posts: 3,400	This was all looked into over Michael Holmes. The UK screwed up implementation of the legislation (what's new)? Fact is: A UK MEP is elected on the list system. BUT: If he resigns a party whip, he remains an MEP until he personally resigns: This worked to favour Holmes and Mote. If you suggest it is biased against UKIP, they cackle uproariously Last edited by SponPlague; 14-09-2008 at 10:10 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

14-09-2008, 07:23 PM	#12 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 1,062	"Of course, it is common knowledge (and truthful beyond reproach) that the criminality at the heart of the EU knows no bounds - indeed several senior politicians have been assasinated by EU insiders over the years for simply suggesting they might not support some part of the EU master plan." Do tell us more ! Do you mean assasinate as in kill or as in character assasination ,NYGE 21 ?

15-09-2008, 09:30 AM	#20 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	gumshoe: You are possibly correct, but that does not affect the principle of a personal vote and a party one.