This seems to us to be very important information. The BBC, who boasts about their very large news group in Brussels, failed to report any of this. Could it be anything to do with the £250m ‘loan’ from the European Investment Bank? (How on earth will they pay back that loan? – or is it a ‘Levi loan’?)
From the European Parliament equivalent of Hansard.
Farage
(IND/DEM ), on behalf of the group .
– Mr President, Mr Barroso said: 'I think my team is
of high quality'. Well, let us conduct a human audit. I am mindful that audits
are not very popular in the European Commission and that auditors – if they do
their job properly – get fired, but nonetheless here goes:
From France we have Mr Barrot, who will take on transport. In 2000 he received an eight-month suspended jail sentence for his involvement in an embezzlement case and was banned from holding public office for two years.
From Hungary we have Mr Kovács, who will take on taxation. For many years he was a Communist apparatchik, a friend of Mr Kádár, the dictator in Hungary, and an outspoken opponent of the values that we hold dear in the West.
(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)
His new empire will produce taxation policy and he will look after the customs union from Cork to Vilnius. Are the PPE Group and the British Conservatives really going to vote for that?
From Estonia we have Mr Kallas, who for 20 years was a Soviet Party apparatchik until his newly acquired taste for capitalism got him into trouble. However, to be fair, he was acquitted of abuse and fraud but convicted for providing false information. He is going to be in charge of the anti-fraud drive! You could not make this up!
(Laughter and applause from the IND/DEM Group)
From the UK we have Mr Mandelson, who will take on the trade portfolio. He, of course, was removed twice from the British Government, but to be fair, he is one of the more competent ones!
From the Netherlands we have Mrs Kroes, who will take on competition. She is accused of lying to the European Parliament. These may be only allegations, but they are made by Mr van Buitenen and should be listened to.
Ask yourself a question: would you buy a used car from this Commission? The answer simply must be 'No'! Even if they were competent and even if this were a high-quality Commission – sorry, Mr Barroso, but I do not think it is – we would still vote 'No' on the political principle that the Commission is the guardian of the Treaties; the Commission is the motor for integration; the Commission initiates the legislation that is damaging our businesses across Europe so badly; the Commission is the embodiment of all that is worst in this European Union; the Commission is the government of Europe and is not directly accountable to anybody.
Please, when you vote, take note that 20 of these Commissioners have already said that they intend to attempt to implement the Constitution even before it has been ratified by Member State governments. In the face of such breathtaking arrogance, nobody in the Independence and Democracy Group will vote for this Commission.
(Loud applause from the IND/DEM Group)
Farage (IND/DEM ). – Mr President, I am not sure whether I take your comments as being a neutral intervention or perhaps more of a veiled threat. I suspect the latter. I would like to make it perfectly clear that I did not make these comments without having done substantial research. Mr Cohn-Bendit implied that he knew rather more about the case by trying to say that these difficulties and problems have affected many parties in France.
I made the comments about Mr Barrot having researched the case very carefully. I believed it was a function of parliaments – even though I am not a particular fan of this one – that their Members be able to speak freely, to make statements and to ask questions. I thought that was what parliaments were all about, so I find Mr Poettering's comments very surprising.
I will make it perfectly clear: if it is proved that what I have said is wrong, if it is proved that my research is flawed, then of course, in those circumstances, I would withdraw the remarks and apologise wholeheartedly.
(Applause from the IND/DEM Group)
Raphael Minder Financial Times - 19 November 2004
Jacques Barrot, France's freshly appointed European commissioner, came under attack yesterday after it was revealed he was given a suspended prison sentence in 2000 following a funding scandal involving his political party.
Nigel Farage, who is the European parliamentary leader of the UK Independence party, yesterday said Mr Barrot should not be allowed to join the EU executive as transport commissioner having received a suspended eight-month sentence in 2000 for his involvement in the funding scam. Upon receiving the conviction, however, Mr Barrot then qualified for a presidential amnesty that also made it illegal to make any public mention of the conviction under French law.
The revelation came on the day the new European Commission was finally approved by members of the European parliament after a fight over the qualifications of several commissioners.
Mr Barrot, a close political ally of Jacques Chirac, the French president, was an unexpected choice as France's nominee to the new EU executive because of his relatively low-profile political career.
However, he was among the Commission nominees who performed best during parliamentary confirmation hearings in October and his appointment had not been questioned by MEPs before yesterday's allegations by Mr Farage.
They were part of a wide-ranging attack by Mr Farage against several of the members of the new Commission, which he concluded by saying that "nobody would buy a used car from this Commission".
Mr Farage's attack sparked a row in the Strasbourg chamber, with parliamentary leaders even suggesting that legal action should be taken against him for defamation.
However, Mr Farage refused to back down, saying he would only apologise if the facts were proved wrong. His party also later issued a statement to defend Mr Farage. It said: "Many French MEPs were not aware of the conviction, as in compliance with French law it was totally censored from the French media."
Mr Barrot's lawyer issued a statement last night insisting his client had never been barred from holding office and saying that any allusion to a topic covered by an amnesty could lead to lawsuits under French law.
EU officials later confirmed that Mr Barrot had been convicted in February 2000, following an investigation into financing for his political party, although one said the case was "not about personal enrichment".
A Commission spokesman said the pardon meant Mr Barrot had a clean record and was eligible for office and also denied Mr Farage's allegation Mr Barrot had been barred for two years from public office.
In a further twist, Mr Barrot's appointment also came under the spotlight yesterday because José Manuel Barroso, the Commission president, disclosed that he had chosen Italian Rocco Buttiglione to fill the justice portfolio because Mr Barrot had turned down the position because he wanted to have an economic portfolio.
Last month, Mr Buttiglione's ultra-conservative views on homosexuality and women triggered a stand-off between Mr Barroso and MEPs, which delayed the appointment of the new Commission by three weeks.
© Financial Times
http://www.eupoliti x.com/EN/ News/200708/ ceb94a82- 2681-43c0- 986c-cb1ff0e36cb
2.htm
theparliament. com -
EU chief under fire from MEPs over electoral payments investigation
Published: Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:44:36 GMT+02
Author: Brian Johnson & Anthony Fletcher
European commission president José Manuel Barroso is coming under increasing
pressure to publicly respond to allegations that Portugal’s social democratic
party received illegal electoral payments in 2002 when he was head of the party.
According to Portuguese press reports, Lisbon’s constitutional tribunal has
examined documents that suggest that more than €233,000 was funnelled to the PSD
through a construction company, flouting the country’s electoral rules.
The European commission has refused to comment on the inquiry arguing that the
issue is a Portuguese and not an EU matter.
“This is a purely national issue,” said a commission spokeswoman on Friday.
However Belgian Green MEP Bart Staes told theParliament. com that the
investigation could have wider EU implications and wants the commission chief to
explain his knowledge of the allegations to MEPs.
Staes is keen to emphasise that the commission chief has not been accused of any
wrongdoing and is “innocent until proven guilty."
“However, if it’s proven that money was given to the PSD and Barroso was aware
of it then it’s not purely a Portuguese question,” said Staes.
“I’m a pro-European not a Eurosceptic, but article 213.1 of the treaty states
that commissioners must have a certain integrity and independence. It would be
wiser for Barroso to put his cards on the table and tell parliament what is
going on."
“Would Barroso have been nominated as commission president if these allegations
were known in 2004? Would the European parliament have accepted his
candidature?”
Staes has also tabled a written question to the commission asking whether any EU
contracts have been awarded to the construction company at the centre of the
allegations, Somague, and has called for European anti-fraud office (OLAF)
involvement.
The Green MEP says that he hopes that parliament’s group leaders will take up
the call for Barroso to make a statement to deputies when MEPs return to
Brussels next week.
Fellow Belgian MEP Dirk Sterckx also wants Barroso to address parliament’s
concerns.
“The Portuguese investigation has to be completed. It’s not for me to judge,”
the ALDE deputy told this website.
“But I wouldn’t be against the commission president releasing a statement or
explanation to the parliament on the investigation. These are after all serious
allegations.”
“I would not be surprised if the issue came up during the parliament’s group
meetings when MEPs return to Brussels next week."
http://www.telegrap h.co.uk/news/ newstopics/ politics/ conservative/
2094970/EU- fiddles-How- MEPs-can- exploit-their- expenses. html
EU fiddles: How MEPs can exploit their expenses
Last Updated: 11:05PM BST 08/06/2008
There are several ways in which MEPs can maximise their income without breaking
any regulations:
Appointing a friend as paying agent
The rules allow for the £160,000 a year staff allowance to be disbursed by a
nominated agent, who is meant to be a firm of accountants. But this is not a
formal requirement, and some MEPs nominate family members to handle the entire
sum, paying themselves out of it.
Keeping the surplus
The paying agent might also run a surplus each month. In theory, any surplus
should be repaid and the end of the five-year term, but audits are unknown and
if, six years after they have stood down, no one has asked to see the books,
MEPs are no longer required to produce figures.
Signing in for five days when working a three-day week
Most meetings in the European Parliament take place between Tuesday and
Thursday. But an MEP who arrives before 10.00 pm on a Monday and leaves after
7.00 am on a Friday can clock in for five full days, worth £1150 (tax-free).
Maximising the mileage
MEPs are paid at a fixed travel rate, regardless of whether they drive, take the
train or fly. There is a direct Air France flight from London to Strasbourg, but
it is expensive, and there is little difference between the actual cost and the
official reimbursement rate. If MEPs take a cheap flight from Stansted to
Frankfurt Hahn, and arrange for an official car to drive them 100 miles to the
European Parliament, they can make around £700 in clear profit.
Never missing a week
Although there are six designated "constituency weeks" each year, in which there
are no meetings at the European Parliament, and MEPs are supposed to work in
their home countries, those who do come can still claim the full mileage
allowance – and, of course, sign in for £227 a day.