The Student Room Group

New UKIP MEP criticises "voting" sham in the EU Parliament

Jonathan Arnott: UKIP North East MEP says the European Parliament is beyond reform

United Kingdom Independence Party Euro MP for the North East says voting every six seconds is no way for the European Parliament to run its business.

At the speed of a charging train, the votes follow one another thick and fast. "Amendment 5/1 - votes in favour, votes against, abstentions, carried. Amendment 5/2 - votes in favour, votes against, abstentions, rejected."

Each vote takes around six seconds. I’ve not yet seen a voting session with more than a hundred votes, but seasoned colleagues tell me that they once had to vote 900 times in three days. The average is somewhere around 500.

This is how new laws are made in the European Parliament. No-one could understand the detail of all these votes, so instead they rely on voting lists prepared by teams of staff with a brief explanation of why they’re supposed to vote in a particular way.

As a new member of the European Parliament, the whole process seems undemocratic to me. We’re often voting on things that haven’t even been debated, and when something is ‘debated’ there’s no time for anything more than soundbites: microphones are often cut off after just 90 seconds.

This lack of debate wouldn’t happen in Westminster. But since the last General Election we’ve had only around 120 new Acts of Parliament compared with well over 3,500 new EU Regulations.

One brave new MEP, an Austrian if memory serves, spoke up saying that he couldn’t keep up with a new vote every few seconds. The President of the Parliament said that other MEPs would be late for their flights home or lunch if they didn’t vote so quickly, and got an enthusiastic round of applause from the Labour and Lib Dem groups.

...More: http://www.thejournal.co.uk/news/news-opinion/jonathan-arnott-ukip-north-east-7690643

Footage of the rubber-stamping apparatchiks in action here:
[video="youtube;dKQAEFPg7PU"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKQAEFPg7PU[/video]
Do you have any other examples of this happening? I've watched several debates in the European Parliament but i've never come across this. What were they voting on in the video?
The EU isn't democratic, it's an entirely undemocratic state-building project. Shown here is the EU parliament acting in effect as a rubber-stamper for the foundational laws of an increasingly integrated EU. But the UKIP MEPs protest isn't the eye-opening thing, it's the quote by the person at front "I'm speeding up where I know it's not a controversial vote. Where there are problems I slow down." The idea that any of the EU's obviously left-biased legislation is uncontroversial is a complete lie, but there you go, that's their attitude.
The idea is that the MEPs review the legislation that is being debated beforehands and decide what amendments they want to support. Getting through the voting efficiently saves time.

Did this MEP read through the legislation he was supposed to be voting on beforehands? Did he decide what position to take on it based on the needs of the people he represents in the north east of England? Or did he just run for the European elections because he thought it was his best chance of getting elected as a UKIP member and he has no real interest in participating, which would be pretty par for the course for UKIP MEPs:

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/85563e82-8f44-11e3-be85-00144feab7de.html#axzz3BuRXaBBf

In the parliament itself, Ukip typically misses a third of the votes, double the average.
But that does not stop the party claiming hundreds of thousands of euros in pay and allowances.


I expect he doesn't have any real interest in the European Parliament, and he just wanted to say something negative. If they had given MEPs a minute for each vote and it had dragged on all day he would have been moaning about the 'endless slow grinding bureaucracy'.

Here is some background on how the procedure works.

http://www.europarl.europa.eu/aboutparliament/en/00623fe732/How-plenary-works.html

Unlike the voting, which is sometimes held at a very rapid pace, the debates can last for several hours, depending on the number of Members who wish to speak. They usually speak in their own language, and what they say is interpreted simultaneously by the interpreters into the other official EU languages.

Speaking time in the Chamber is allocated according to the following criteria: a first fraction of speaking time is divided equally amongst all the political groups, then a further fraction is divided among the groups in proportion to the total number of their members. MEPs who wish to speak are entered on the list of speakers in an order based on the numerical size of their group. However, a priority speaking slot is given to the rapporteurs of the committees responsible and to draftsmen of other committees asked for an opinion.
Original post by MagicNMedicine
The idea is that the MEPs review the legislation that is being debated beforehands and decide what amendments they want to support. Getting through the voting efficiently saves time.
The point he makes in the video is that the votes (which are neither counted nor recorded in any case) are effectively not taken at all, since the options are presented at such a speed that no one can tell who is voting in favour, against, or abstaining. There has already been some agreement what will happen and the Parliament is just a rubber stamp.

Did this MEP read through the legislation he was supposed to be voting on beforehands?

Again as stated, this task is performed by the civil service. The MEP-actors just show up to pass on the instructions that are handed to them in votes that are conducted for show.

Quick Reply

Latest