The Day Democracy Died.
Okay, I'll admit it. As a UKIP MEP I've believed
for a while now that the European Parliament lacks many of the true features of
a proper Parliamentary democracy. I didn't think that I could be any more
shocked than I have been already at the breathtaking lack of respect for the
rules, but I was wrong. The Parliament trampled over its own rules blatantly,
drowning out howls of protest.
Flash back a few hours to two meetings. UKIP's
group in the European Parliament had hosted Beppe Grillo, leader of the Italian
Five Star Movement and Vaklav Klaus, who was President of the Czech Republic for
10 years. Both spoke to us about democracy. Both, in their own ways, are
impressive speakers. Grillo is a comedian who entered politics to try to clean
up the political establishment in Italy. When politicians act like comedians,
perhaps it takes a comedian to lead the way in politics. He speaks from the
heart, burning with passion, standing up for his belief that Italy can become a
modern democracy. Klaus on the other hand gave a more sombre account of life in
the Soviet Union. Five years as Prime Minister and ten as President made him a
key player shaping the Czech Republic as they transitioned to a healthy, vibrant
democracy. He spoke however about his concerns, that the European Union is
taking away power which the Czech people had won back for themselves. There was
standing room only for both meetings; rooms packed full of true believers in
democracy.
In the chamber it was an entirely different story.
Nigel Farage had gone to accompany the former Czech President to the airport,
and wasn't sure whether he'd make it back in time to speak in the debate about
the 'Lux Leaks' Juncker scandal. In his stead, his deputy Paul Nuttall would
ably deputise. Up rose Guy Verhofstadt, from the Liberal group to which our
solitary remaining British Lib Dem MEP belongs.
He launched into a tirade against Nigel Farage in
his absence, making comments about his finances which would doubtless be
libellous were they repeated without Parliamentary privilege. The President of
the Parliament could have stepped in: he did not. Incredibly, Verhofstadt
described it as a 'point of order' and demanded extra speaking time for his
speech. His chutzpah was somehow rewarded, and his speaking clock was reset.
Points of order, in the European Parliament, must quote one of the Parliament's
Rules of Procedure. Verhofstadt's comments were not a point of order in any way,
shape or form.
So I rose on a (genuine) point of order, quoted the
relevant rule, and asked the President of the Parliament to rule that this was
out of order. The President ignored my point, and blamed Nigel Farage. It was at
this point that I started studying the Parliament's Rules of Procedure intently:
I wanted to quote the Rule which requires the President of the Parliament to
remain impartial. The Speaker of the House of Commons has to be neutral; giving
up his or her Parliamentary affiliation, he or she proceeds to
referee.
I searched and searched the Parliament's rules, and
came to a shocking conclusion: there is no such rule. Nothing requires
impartiality from the President of the Parliament. Imagine if, during a
Manchester United v Manchester City derby, the referee was a known Manchester
United fan and there were no requirement for the referee to be fair. There would
be an incredible public outcry. We're talking here about something even more
important than football: we're talking about how our country is governed. Yet
the President of the Parliament has no obligation not to don the red shirt of
the Labour Party's political group whilst presiding over
debates.
But that wasn't all. The Italians in our Group had
put up a candidate for the vice-President position of the Parliament. There are
14 of them, chosen in proportion to the size of the political groups. With one
minor exception: anyone from UKIP's Group is frozen out. Our candidate publicly
stepped down and blasted the Parliament for its lack of democracy. The Italians
held up posters with a picture of a tombstone stating 'RIP
Democracy'.
The Parliament then descended into Kafka-esque
farce as we had just one candidate remaining, and we proceeded to vote on
whether or not we wanted that candidate. We were asked to either vote 'Yes' or
'Abstain'; there was no option to vote No. Many of us tried to protest, and I
rose on a Point of Order, but we were interrupted by the establishment parties
demanding that they be allowed to vote in secret and hide their decisions from
scrutiny.
The President of the Parliament asked "Has everyone
voted?" We shouted loudly "No", as he had not yet taken my Point of Order. He
replied "Yes?" and closed the vote. Finally, my point of order was taken. I
quoted Rule 17 of the Rules of Procedure, which does not provide for this
bizarre mechanism or for choices of Yes/Abstain but without a No. Under the
Parliament's Rules, he is required to make a ruling on the point. Instead, he
just ignored it and closed the session.
We all know the European Union doesn't take No for
an answer; it showed that when France and Ireland voted No to the EU
Constitution. But they've found a new way of preventing a No vote. Only give us
the choice of 'Yes' or 'Abstain'. That way, nobody at all has voted No. It's
neat, but it's not democracy.
Follow
Jonathan Arnott on Twitter: www.twitter.com/JonathanArnott
.jpeg)