To many, the role of an MEP is somewhat obscure. What does such an MEP do in Brussels? How does he fight the nation’s corner? How does he represent his constituents? What functions does he attend?
These and allied questions are pertinent because they relate to an MEP’s function and purpose.
It is first necessary to understand the role of the Parliament. In essence the Parliament oversees the legislative proposals that have emanated from the thousands of unelected bureaucrats who run the European Commission. The Parliament scrutinises such legislation via 20 Committees, consisting of MEPs and during Plenary (Parliamentary) sessions.
The committees draw up, amend and adopt legislative proposals and reports. They consider Commission and Council proposals and, where necessary, draw up reports to be presented to the Plenary.
Ordinary legislative procedure gives the same weight to the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union on such areas as, for example, economic governance, immigration, energy, transport, the environment and consumer protection. The majority of European laws are adopted jointly by the European Parliament and the Council.
The Commission sends its proposals to both Parliament and the Council. They consider and discuss these via two readings. In the event of no agreement being reached, the proposals are brought before a Conciliation Committee comprising an equal number of representatives from the Council and Parliament. Representatives of the Commission also attend these discussions. Once an agreement has been reached, the wording is sent to Parliament and the Council for a third reading, to adopt the legislative text. The final agreement of the two institutions is required for the text to become adopted as a law.
Parliament may still reject the proposed law by a majority of the votes cast. In practice, however, Parliament rarely rejects a proposal and it should be noted that the vast majority of MEPs believe in and enthusiastically support the existence of the European Union, its aims and ambitions.
It should also be noted that something in the order of 75% of the national legislation of the member states originates from the EU.
An MEP’s responsibility encompasses three distinctive spheres:
1 Plenary (Parliament): By far the most strenuous task involves the scrutiny of legislation prior to daily voting at Plenary. Generally, there are two Plenary sessions per month: one at Strasbourg and, usually, a slightly smaller session at Brussels.
Legislative resolutions are normally completed, with their various tabled amendments, a day or so before voting occurs at mid-day.
Debates also occur in advance of voting. An MEP is usually entitled to a one or two minute speech, depending upon whether the speech has been tabled in advance of the debate.
Diligent MEPs and their advisors will take breakfast at 7.30pm and then head for the Parliament, usually not returning to their hotels or rented accommodation until well after 8pm but often considerably later.
A mountain of legislation awaits them: a weekly session in Strasbourg will usually encompass several thousand pages of legislative documents, which must be read, absorbed and understood before a decision on voting intentions can be determined.
Often, over a thousand votes are held at each weekly session. On occasion, over a thousand votes can be held in one daily voting session.
For the most part, Andrew Brons votes against legislation but often there occur occasions when neither a ‘for’ nor an ‘against’ and nor even an ‘abstention’ may simply be determined. Recently, for example, a vote occurred on a trade measure relating to Georgia. Whilst this measure was of benefit to EU manufacturers and EU branded goods, it was deemed to be a measure that facilitated the ultimate ambition of the Europhiles to secure Georgia as another member state within the European Union. We voted against the measure.
Occasionally, too, Andrew Brons supports legislation. A recent example related to a measure designed to reduce the volume and expense of red tape.
Diligence must be done in Plenary. Our MEP’s office keeps a careful note of our Member’s voting record at each session, with the reasons for his decision recorded. On occasion, enquiring constituents have been provided with that record and the reasoning behind it. How a member has voted is also maintained on the public register at the Parliament – unless a show of hands or a simple electronic vote has been employed.
Some MEPs are less diligent than others. The attendance of some MEPs is appalling and their voting intentions are determined by their party whip. It is doubtful whether many MEPs will know for what they have voted, after the event. Without membership of a trans-national grouping (such as the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats (S&D Group)), our MEP must carry out his research using his own resources.
The day or so that precedes voting is also an occasion to ‘catch the eye’ of the speaker and contribute to the debate. Our MEP uses these opportunities to inject satire but also philosophical and ideological viewpoints which, often, provide the only fundamental opposition to the thrust of the debate in hand, and within a public forum that may be accessed by the electorate. Andrew Brons’ speeches may be viewed on his Parliamentary website – http://andrewbrons.eu/
2 Committee: Each MEP belongs to one Committee and shadows another, at which he may also vote in the absence of his opposite number on that Committee. The Member may make verbal contributions to both.
Andrew Brons is a full Member of the Constitutional Affairs’ Committee and a shadow Member of the Civil Liberties’ Committee.
The Constitutional Committee is where all new proposals to diminish the sovereignty of nation states are channeled and it is a matter of significance that, until very recently, no Member from Ukip bothered to sit on this most important of all Committees.
The Civil Liberties’ Committee oversees what are deemed to be the liberties of the citizen but such terms must be understood in their widest context. Such liberties often concern those of the minorities imposed upon the majority and rarely the true interests of the latter.
Committee meetings, debates and votes are an ongoing feature of an MEP’s work.
3 Constituency Work: An MEP’s postbag is usually filled with representations from lobby groups, relating to legislation but also from constituents. Most of this is dealt with at the local office of the MEP.
Occasionally, however, delegations visit the MEP in his Parliamentary offices in Strasbourg or Brussels in order to seek assistance. An example, recently, was a delegation from an animal welfare charity, which sought to highlight the mistreatment of dogs on the Continent. Andrew Brons, who is also a dog owner, at once raised the matter in a Parliamentary Question to the Commission.
Occasionally, also, there will be an opportunity to raise constituents’ problems on the floor of the Parliament.
Such matters may be considered to be of questionable merit. On the other hand, they can be well recorded in the literature of the charity concerned.
Gravy Train?
It has long been stated by some that an MEP has boarded an expensive and well-furnished gravy train. Is this statement accurate? The answer is both yes and no.
Many MEPs, including those from a Euro-sceptic UK party, treat the Parliament as though it were a gravy train. Certain of these elements rarely attend and their voting record is poor and sometimes, such is their negligence, they often vote in the opposite direction to that demanded by their Party’s policy.
For those who wish to enter a merry-go-round of drinks’ parties, cocktail functions, lunches and dinners, the opportunities exist. MEPs are subjected to invitations from hundreds of different lobbying groups and vested interests.
Do Andrew Brons and his staff attend these events? Were they to do so, they would be unable to find the considerable time required to attend to their responsibilities. Throughout the term of office, to date, they have probably briefly attended three drinks’ functions – considerably less than the opportunities that would appertain, often monthly, in the commercial sphere.
A Recognised Public Forum
Membership of the European Parliament brings with it several advantages:
a) Membership of a Parliament and, in our case, election to the highest Parliamentary chamber bar Westminster.
b) The public recognition that the above bestows.
c) Attendant media publicity resulting from the above.
d) Invitations to speak at functions, schools, civic institutions, etc.
e) An ability to represent constituents via a Parliamentary platform and to bring the Council and Commission to account via the spoken word and through the facility of tabling Parliamentary questions.
The single drawback is that high ranking members of the party may be abroad when they are required at home. The answer to this criticism is simple: a deep, broadly based organisation would promote its talent so that the presence of those elected to office – at Council, Westminster or European levels – would not be missed. Until we can find a leader that is not frightened to promote talent and ability, then we shall continue to rely unduly upon that leader and his immediate appointments, however unsuitable they may be for the task in hand.
The Value of Carrying Out the Elected Task
Elected representatives have, unsurprisingly, been elected to carry out the function for which they have been awarded a mandate.
Too often, elected nationalists have failed to perform in their elected capacity. Sometimes they have remained invisible in their council chamber whilst others have failed to attend or serve out their term of office, thereby abandoning their electorates and their own members, who sought and worked for their election.
Such conduct creates an untidy image of irresponsibility and incompetence, which does not go unremarked by the media. Not least, successor candidates have later wondered why they have failed to be elected by unimpressed voters.
Whilst readers of this article will wish to condemn the Liberal Democrats, they have at least gained a reputation as worthy constituency representatives. It is equally important that nationalist members attain the same or a better reputation for competence, hard work and diligence.
When our MEP’s term of office has been completed, his record will be one of the best in the European Parliament. It has already received plaudits from fellow nationalists.
When the opportunity arises to win a seat at Westminster, the accusation that nationalist representatives are unworthy of support because they do not carry out their purpose, hopefully, will hold no water.
The suggestion that an elected representative works too hard at the task for which he has received a mandate is one that would be difficult to make up. Such imbecilic and uninformed opinion descends from those whose stamp, for the most part, has weakened the patriotic cause in the UK.
2
Have a look at the “main” BNP site since its web editor quit last month. It’s full of typos. A total embarrassment. Perhaps you should do an article about it?
Great article and very informative. I had wondered what our MEPs did in Brussels but now what Andrew Brons and his colleagues do.
I never thought our MEP and his staff and advisors were living the high life some jealous and divisive people say, so this is useful information.
I would like to know how many bnp councillors failed to serve their terms and who they were.
If we can create a reputation like the Lib Dems as good representatives at grass root levels, then this article is well aimed and voters will be prepared to give us a chance.
The article also tells us how ill-thought out is the legislation at Brussels. How can thousands of pages and votes be considered or read in so short a time?
Worse, what type of parliament is it that cannot originate legislation but must depend on the unelected Commission to do so?
To whose agenda do these Commissioners work? Obviously, not our national agenda!
An interesting insight into the actual role of an MEP and what goes on in the EU ‘Parliament’. However, I think we may be in danger of losing sight of why we, as British Nationalists, took part in the process of EU electoral politics in the first place. Why did we, in ‘the BNP’, mount a nationwide campaign to get members elected in the eight UK regions (as designated by our masters in Brussels)? Because, like it or not, they exist. The EU and its various institutions exist, although we would wish it otherwise because of the diminution of sovereignty that EU membership represents. Until such times as we as a nation can extricate ourselves from the EU, it is a choice between taking what some might regard as a principled stand in completely boycotting EU elections, or recognising that the process presented an unmissable national electoral opportunity for our party to promote itself and its ideology and obtain more coverage even than in a UK General Election! I recall that the first leader of the UKIP, Prof. Alan Sked, was totally opposed to taking part – ‘on principle’ – and thus departed leaving them to it. As we have seen, they progressed from 3 MEP’s in 1999 to 12 in 2004 and 13 in 2009 (coming 3rd overall). Whatever we may think of them, they demonstrated what could be achieved by a ‘third party’ political force on an anti-EU ticket in an election fought on a PR list system (The d’Hondt electoral method). As the article above points out, many of the UKIPPERS have been seemingly ineffective actually ‘doing the job’. From 1999 they have had their problems with splits and MEP resignations, (Holmes, Kilroy, Mote, Sinclaire). None of that has stopped them from being re-elected because in a sense, the election itself is a form of referendum on the EU every five years and just winning a seat means ‘job done’, whatever happens thereafter – until the next Euro election! However, in the meantime, what is important and useful to a party such as UKIP, or the BNP or any future manifestation of a nationalist party, is the status the role brings in the context of national politics and the building an nurturing of that party as a strong and credible entity in the eyes of the electorate, whose support needs to be won over in the much more important struggle for seats at Westminster. If such a party no longer exists (in any meaningful sense), then having seats in Brussels ceases to serve any meaningful purpose.
I am not suggesting that Andrew Brons is not doing his job as an MEP very well. On the contrary. However, at the time of his election he was representing a party that had a relatively strong public profile, that was cohesive and to all intent, was on the “up”.
What I am saying essentially is that the ‘worth’ of having an MEP is now being squandered by the lack of a party for him to represent. Yes, Andrew is certainly true to the principles and beliefs on which he stood for election and bravo to that. It is he who has been betrayed by the Party leader, as indeed we all have. But in 2014 when Andrew’s term ends – and he has said he will retire – what then? Similarly, with all our Councillors (now ‘Ex’ Councillors). No doubt most of them were partly driven by a desire to serve their local community for its own sake, but their over-riding motivation was to be a part of something bigger – a machinery whose principle purpose was to progress and advance the cause of British Nationalism. Without that, the desire to sit on committees discussing drains and cracked pavements was probably less than appealing!
In other articles on this site, Andrew has discussed all the various splinter groups and embryo parties that now exist in the wake of the BNP’s implosion. He has opined that they will all fail and there is no point in adding a further one to their number. Without unity we will fail etc etc. Indeed, but to have a hope of succeeding you have to have some credibility to start with emanating from having the best and most talented people and…. having existing political representation would be something none of the other factions could compete with. The BNP Ideas ‘faction’ (if I can get away with calling it that) have all the best and most talented people and….they have an MEP! Failing to use that advantage in the next 2 1/2 years (until the next Euro election) would in my view be a terrible wasted opportunity.
Amendment to above. Sorry, I stated eight UK Euro regions, There are 11 including Northern Ireland.
Andrew Brons has done a tremendous job of representing his constituents and is a superb ambassador for both the BNP and nationalism in general. It seems to me that the European parliament fulfils a similar function to that of our own second chamber, the House of Lords, here in Britain. It also seems that the European Commission fulfils a similar function to our House of Commons. The difference being that here in Britain the House of Commons is elected and the Lords is made of both life peers who have been appointed and hereditary peers. The EU runs in an opposite way to our own. There, the non-elected bureaucrats and appointed Commissioners are the only ones who can introduce legislation and it is the elected representatives that are expected to amend or accept that legislation. The idea that any of this legislation would be totally rejected seems very remote given the fact that so much is thrust upon the MEP’s that it would be exhausting for them to read everything and absorb all the background facts before voting. This cannot be considered to be a reasonable system of democratic government. The fact that MEP’s only get a one or two minute chance to speak on any issue is also not giving them a fair amount of time to properly address and challenge issues arising from any given proposed legislation. The BNP was totally opposed to the EU and had a policy of immediate withdrawal, in the event of forming a national government. However, since we managed to gain those two seats in the EU Parliament our leadership decided that the EU was too important to withdraw from. In fact he stated that it would take at least ten years to disentangle ourselves from the EU. However, the longer we remain in the EU the more sovereignty we will lose.The Constitutional Committee, where all new proposals to diminish the sovereignty of nation states are channelled, is something that we nationalists should be making the general public aware of. Andrew Brons is right to have chosen that committee as it is pernicious, and betrays the intentions of the EU to destroy all nation states within it. Although I agree that any nationalist who is elected must do his or her utmost to represent their party and their constituents, our continued membership of the EU must surely be regarded as entirely and completely against our national interest. As nationalists we must endeavour to extract our nation at the earliest opportunity from this communist inspired, antidemocratic union. On a personal level, I never voted to become a citizen of the European Union. I was too young to vote when we were asked if we wished to remain in the Common Market. Those who could vote were not voting for a union of states with a European government telling all previously sovereign governments what to do. They were lied to by traitor politicians like Edward Heath. Indeed, Enoch Powell spoke passionately against what has become the EU, with a searing intellect that could see where the Common Market was going and what it would morph into he tried to alarm voters of what was to come. Tragically, he was ignored by the majority of voters. We now have our BNP elected representatives doing their utmost to defend British interests from EU meddling. However, what use is it when so many of the other MEP’s are only their for the money and the opulent lifestyle? We must return to our flagship policy of immediate withdrawal from the EU. It is an evil and obviously very seductive institution which a certain party leader was unable to resist. The sooner we are free from the EU the better for all true Britons.
Sorry I know this has no relation to the above article, but has anyone here been onto any of the nationalist forums. It seems the Brent group have joined the british freedom party. Now I’ll accept that it’s up to them. but i thought they were supposed to be an afiliation of this group. As a side question is this everyone in the brent group or just on the say so of chairmen roger bennet.
Sorry, but I am the only one who is not the slightest bit interested in what MEP’s are doing in Brussels or wherever? I certainly do not want to wade through an article (and won’t) detailing all the goings on in an institution I despise. There are much more pressing things linked to Nationalism to spend valuable time on.
Just like with the Islamic invaders currently swamping us, I am sick of seeing them, having to consider them, thinking about then, hearing about them, avoiding them, queuing behind them, seeing them spit and snot in the street, paying higher car insurance because of them, etc, etc, and long for a long-gone lifestyle when it was not so.
The same goes for the EU, zero interest, I just want to be shut of their influence on my life.
Off topic but can I ask if the Brent Group banner is going to be kept in its prominent place on this website now that it as aligned itself to the British Freedom Party as I am led to believe?
Just clicked on the Brent Group webpage and it says they are now BFP. Bad move. I have no idea why a genuine nationalist would want to join a multiracial civic nationalist party. To remind people of their potty policies, please take a look at their website with slogans such as: ”It’s About Space Not Race” and ”Culture Not Colour”. Many people are now saying that ethno-nationalists have to ”get with the times”, however i have a nationalist conscience. I think people who are selling out now to these multiracial/civic parties really need to get a reality check.
Its about winning elections and about time.
In short supply
Mr Brons was elected and signed up to be a nationalist MEP, and that by all accounts is a job he has done extremely well on behalf of the people who voted for him and the principles he serves. Thankyou for the hard work you do representing us Mr Brons.
Andrew Brons in action –
”Distinctive cultures are made by distinctive peoples and not the other way round. We are not the products of our culture; our cultures are the products of our peoples. Replacing Europeans with people from the Third World will mean that Europe will be replaced by the Third World. Europe is slowly but steadily being ethnically cleansed of Europeans”. Search on youtube for this excellent speech.
What an interesting and informative article!
Are Mr Brons and Mr Griffin able to work together on European matters?