eurealist.co.uk

Conservative MP Peter Lilly it attempting to bring in a private members bill to reduce MPs pay in line with the transfers of powers between Parliament and European Union institutions.

and reported in the Telegraph

Reading his bill he makes the point that

In virtually every occupation, it is recognised that pay should reflect responsibilities. If people receive more responsibilities, they get higher pay. If they move to a post with fewer responsibilities, they expect to receive lower pay. The same should be true of Parliament. If, as is contemplated under the Bill that deals with the European constitutional treaty, this House hands over more of its powers to European institutions, MPs’ remuneration should reflect that diminution of their responsibilities.

Mr Lilly says that ;

A substantial transfer of powers has already occurred under previous treaties, and this House has ceded powers on a lesser scale to devolved Parliaments and to the judiciary under the Human Rights Act 1998.

In his speech Mr Lilly called on the comments of Gisela Stuart who served on the Praesidium of European constitutional convention and understands the powers that will be transferred by the constitution in its new guise of the Lisbon treaty,

“If the Treaty of Lisbon is ratified and devolution…continues apace, in fifteen to twenty years this House of Commons will have only two functions…to raise taxes and…to authorise war”.
She went on to say that we are making
“fewer and fewer decisions that matter to people’s daily lives, and that she could not tell her constituents that the buck stops here.

Few voters, or even Members of this House, Mr Lilly says -

fully realise how many powers have been, or are about to be, transferred elsewhere. There are three reasons for this. The first is that Governments of all persuasions deny that any significant powers are being transferred. The second is that, once powers have been transferred, Ministers engage in a charade of pretence that they still retain those powers. Even when introducing measures that they are obliged to bring in as a result of an EU directive, they behave as though the initiative were their own.
In an attempt to divert the ludicrous claim that the EU is only responsible for 10 per cent of our laws a figure he says that is attributed to a Library paper, but that paper says no such thing. It remarks that the number of statutory instruments laid under the European Communities Act 1972 amounts to about 10 per cent. of all the statutory instruments passed by the House, but points out that EU statutory instruments typically enact a whole directive, which is often the equivalent of an Act of primary legislation, whereas domestic statutory instruments implement regulations.

Mr Lilly`s bill is a step in the right direction, but when the German government admit that 80% of its laws are now made in the EU it can only be a small step; as I have previously mentioned in any other walk of life there would also be a substantial reduction in the numbers of staff in line with a reduction in production. Any other work force that outsourced a very large percentage of its workload to a third party would be expected to reduce its own size to reflect the reality.

The reality is that we elect our MPs to make our laws by passing the authority to make laws to the EU, they are obviously not now doing the job they were elected to do and are paid to do; they have become very little more than glorified social workers.

My own MP is a very nice helpful sort of chap - someone who I would like to vote for - but as I have told him, when he ask if there are any concerns I have with which he could help. Many of my concerns are no longer within his remit to control, he cannot vote against or do anything about much of the legalisation which is making my life difficult and making my business less competitive because that legislation emanates from a system of government that is beyond his control.

It goes without saying that Mr Lilly’s bill has not a hope in hell of being adopted and at its second reading in October will be disperse without trace, turkeys after all,do not vote for Christmas and these turkeys certainly won’t.

I note that one Labour MP (Hugh Bayley) did make an attempt to oppose the bill, it is interesting to look at his argument, which he based on finance, claiming that EU spend is about 0.5 per cent. of EU wealth whereas the spend of our national Government is probably about 40 per cent of our national wealth. Thus he transposed the question to one of a serious transfer of financial responsibility from Westminster to the EU which of course was not the point. It really does not matter how much the EU itself spends, but how much power it has to influence our spending.

Thanks to EU Referendum for the tip;

Technorati Tags:
Peter Lilly, Treaty of Lisbon, MPs pay, EU power,
Add to: | Technorati | Digg | del.icio.us | Yahoo | BlinkList | Spurl | reddit | Furl |