Answers of FAQs put to Jim Allister
25 April 2005
Frequently Asked Questions
download document
What is your typical monthly routine?
The Parliament sits one week per month in plenary session in Strasbourg, with occasional and additional part sessions in Brussels. During two of the other three weeks in the month I generally have committees and other duties in Brussels, which account for 2-3 days of each of those weeks. Meetings with officials or delegations can necessitate further visits to Brussels.
Why does the Parliament sit in both Strasbourg and Brussels?
There is no good reason for this wasteful practice. Frankly, it is to placate the French, who have secured a commitment to Strasbourg in the Treaties. Common sense and proper use of resources dictates that everything should be centred in Brussels, but common sense rarely governs EU decisions.
What Committees are you on and why?
I serve on the Constitutional Affairs Committee and the Fisheries Committee. I chose Constitutional Affairs because this term it is dealing with the EU Constitution and I wished to maximise the opportunities to articulate my opposition to this proposed surrender of further sovereignty to Brussels. Fishing is important to the Northern Ireland economy and has been under tremendous pressure because of the EU's Common Fisheries Policy. I want to try and secure the best available deal for our fishing industry and have an input into shaping new funding arrangements, the European Fisheries Fund, set to come into operation in 2007.
Why do you not belong to one of the big political groups?
All of the major groups are europhile in their outlook and fanatically committed to the further centralisation which I abhor. Also, I find that within the Non-Attached grouping (consisting of around 30 MEPs) I can maximise my speaking opportunities. Unlike members in large groups I do not have to compete with scores of colleagues to secure speaking time. Indeed the record shows that I have been able to speak more often than most. I also secured the committees which I wanted, so to date I have found it an advantage to be non-aligned, though I have excellent working relations with other Euro sceptic colleagues.
How does Europe work?
There are four key institutions: the Commission, the Council, the Parliament and the Court. The Commission is the real powerhouse, consisting of a Commissioner from each member state and thousands of civil servant staff. They draft and bring forward legislative proposals and have a key implementing role. The Council, made up on each subject by the relevant Minister from each member state, sets policy objectives and performs a joint function with the Parliament in passing most EU legislation. The Parliament, directly elected from across the member states, in co-decision with the Council passes legislation but also acts as a sounding board on a vast range of issues, both European and worldwide. The Court of Justice (not to be confused with the European Court of Human Rights in Strasbourg) sits in Luxembourg and interprets the governing Treaties and adjudicates on proceedings brought by the Commission against defaulting member states.
How big is the Parliament?
After Enlargement and the elections of June 2004 there are 732 members of which just over 10% per cent, 78 come from the UK, including 3 from Northern Ireland. The Republic of Ireland has 13 members. From GB there are 27 Tories, 19 Labour, 12 Liberal Democrats, 12 elected for UKIP, 3 Greens and 2 SNP.
Is a common system of voting used in electing the Parliament?
No, not even in the UK. In Northern Ireland we use the single transferable vote system while in GB it’s a list system. List systems are quite common throughout the rest of Europe. In Northern Ireland's case it means a by-election is necessary to fill a vacancy while in GB the next person on the Party List simply takes over.
Can you be both an MEP and an MP?
Not any more. Since 2004 only already sitting MEPs could continue in both the EP and Westminster (Commons or Lords), but that concession will be removed completely at the next election in 2009.
Are all MEPs paid the same?
No, MEPs are paid the same salary as an MP in their own country. Thus there is wide disparity in the salaries paid to MEPs, though all receive the same allowances. However, it is likely that in due course a common salary structure will be introduced.
As a QC can you offer constituents legal advice?
No, there are strict rules governing the operation of the legal profession which require that access to a barrister for advice must be through a solicitor.
What is your relationship with Northern Ireland’s other MEPs?
I have a working relationship with the other exclusively democratic MEP
Jim Nicholson, with co-operation in the common interest of Northern Ireland. I refuse to validate SF/IRA’s twin-track pursuit of politics and terror, and therefore I do not work with its representative.
Do you believe there is a “Democratic Deficit” in the European Union? Do you believe voter apathy could be a symptom of this problem?
There certainly is a democratic deficit in the European Union. There are at least six features to which I would draw attention:-
• Only the Commission can propose legislation yet it is unelected and works in private with no public access.
• The Council of Ministers plays a key legislative role, every proposed law must pass through it, whether the process is co-decision with the Parliament or mere consultation with Parliament, yet the Council exclusively meets in secret so the public never see or hear the debate giving rise to its law-making. The Constitution had some proposals to improve this.
• Whereas the elected parliament can use the nuclear option of sacking the whole Commission or refusing to ratify it at its inception every five years, it cannot reject or sack individual Commissioners.
• The Parliament is the only directly elected body but, at best, it can control legislation through co-decision - on other laws it is only consulted.
• Essential control of the Budget rests with the Council of Ministers.
• Even a fully empowered directly elected parliament still would not give the same nexus of control between people and legislator that is obtainable with a national parliament. If the people of the UK are outraged by the actions of Westminster, they can change their MPs at the next election - if the people of the UK alone change their MEPs it makes little difference because they are only 11% of 732 membership.
Voter apathy is probably a symptom of the deficit since voting seems pointless to many. Such apathy of course compounds and facilitates the democratic deficit and those who exercise free rein under it.
Should we thank the EU for post-war peace and stability?
Those most enthusiastic about what they term the "European Project" in their efforts to talk it up have hyped expectations as to what the EU can and should deliver. Hence, when it fails to deliver there is an evitable backlash of resentment and rejection. I do not subscribe to the theory that the EU can take primary credit for post-war peace and stability, nor for seeing the break-up of the USSR. In this regard, Euro enthusiasts tend to want to ignore the critical role of NATO, which provided the essential post-war security which Europe has enjoyed.
Would you like to see a bigger role for national parliaments? Also, could greater sub-national involvement (perhaps a bigger role for the regions), improve the EU and therefore, solve the democratic deficit?
I would like to see a bigger role for national parliaments by the repatriation of powers back from Brussels to those parliaments. Mere involvement of parliaments as a subsidiary consultee, as proposed in the draft Constitution, only demeans the elected national parliament by underscoring its subservient role, though, of course, giving a cloak of democratic structure to the EU. In terms of the regions, it is part of the strategy of the Commission to promote regions as applicable entities, for the very purpose of providing an alternative perspective and outlook to the nationally based Member States. Hence, a trend in some funding arrangements to give advancement to regions.
What type of European model would you like to see develop in the future?
Fundamentally, I would like to see a Europe of cooperating nation states, where such cooperation is sensible and mutually beneficial. Trade is the obvious area for mutual benefit. Just as EFTA has been a success for its Member States, so a European model based upon cooperation agreements could bring wider economic benefit while preserving the independence and sovereignty of each constituent part. I therefore reject a political agenda for Europe and the whole concept "ever-closer union". Democracy is best rooted and exercised in each Member State who, in their own interests, can then decide to what extent of cooperation best suits their needs.
