FROM:	www.SilentMajority.co.UK/FootInMouth
File:		F&M The EUs POLICY BETRAYAL 020317.rtf
Letter From Brussels
--------------------

by Richard A.E. North
(for FirstVoice)

2002.03.17

In  the  continued  and  scandalous  absence  of  an independent, public inquiry on the foot and mouth epidemic, Euro MPs, led  by  Conservatives Robert  Sturdy  and  Neil  Parish,  have  taken  a hand and successfully initiated a public inquiry in the European Parliament.  Largely regarded with  indifference  by  the British public, this might seem a major coup for this  institution,  which  has  taken  the  "democratic"  course  so studiously avoided by Mr Blair's government.

    However,  as  always in the European Union, nothing is quite what it seems.  One of the more interesting facets of the "new" democracy is the multinational   nature   of  the  Parliament,  where  15  countries  are represented.  Add to that  the  labyrinthine  nature  of  the  political groups in the Parliament and arranging representation of all the various interests on the inquiry has become a nightmare.

    It was inevitable, therefore, that most of the discussions  to  date have not been about foot and mouth but the composition of the committee. Three months down the line, there  have  not  yet  been  any  evidential sessions  and  the  only  outcome  of  hours of negotiation has been the assembly of a disparate group of thirty MEPs, and as many "substitutes".
To  accommodate  the  different nationalities and political pursuasions, they have been appointed not for their knowledge of the subject but  for their political and national "fit". 

    Inevitably,  also,  because  of  the  political  implications of the disease, it was impossible to have a British MEP in either  of  the  key positions  --  the chairman or the "rapporteur", effectively the inquiry "secretary".  We have ended up with a Spanish lady "chair" and a  German rapporteur,  both politically neutral but without any detailed knowledge of what actually happened.

    If that was not bad enough, because of the frenetic,  treadmill-like activity  of  the  Parliament,  every  MEP  already  sits  on two of the existing standing committees and, with the voting commitments and  other activities,  they  actually  have  very  little  time  to spare for this inquiry.  Thus, although the Committee is set to last a year, there will only  be  twelve  full sessions, with a very limited number of witnesses who can be called for each.

    Amazingly, it gets worse.  Everything has a  "democratic"  dimension so  the  witnesses  to  be called are nominated by the political groups, with the numbers allocated in accordance with the  size  of  the  group. The  bigger  the  group,  the  more  witnesses  they  can  nominate, the shortlist then being refined during a process of political haggling.

    As a result, witnesses have been nominated not only for the value of their  potential  contributions  but  for  the opportunities offered for political grandstanding.  And, given that most of the MEPs involved have a  very  limited  knowledge  of  what happened, they are not really in a position to make an informed choice as to what witnesses to call.  Thus, the  initial  list  of  British  witnesses  to  be called is missing two absolutely key players -- Professor David King, the  government's  chief scientist,  and Prof. Roy Anderson, leader of the foot and mouth science group which advised Tony Blair on the disastrous "contiguous cull".

    And, without the powers to demand the attendance of  witnesses,  the committee  has  already  "bottled  out"  and chosen not to call the most important witness of all, Tony Blair -- who  took  a  personal  hand  in managing  the crisis.  Anticipating a refusal, an invitation is not even to be issued.

    That apart, not only is the committee a matter of the blind  leading the blind, it is also the dumb leading the deaf -- or such is the effect of the Tower of Babel that is the European Parliament.  Because this  is a  temporary  committee,  funding  is  limited  and  there  are  serious financial and logistic restraints.  An important deficiency is the  lack of  interpreters  for  the  planning  sessions.   Thus we had the almost surreal event of a recent meeting when our  lady  Spanish  "chair",  who could  not  speak English, had to address a group of English and a Dutch MEP, none of whom could speak Spanish.

    At least the lady had some French,  and  for  those  who  could  not handle  that,  there was interpretation of sorts from the sole member of the secretariat, who happened to be German.  That might have sufficed -- apart  from  the difficulty of understanding French spoken with a strong Spanish accent, or English with a heavy German accent  --  but  for  the fact  that  the lady kept drifting in Spanish, the two languages merging to create an incomprehensible mix  which  could  only  be  described  as "Sprench",  or  perhaps  "Frenish".   What  should have taken minutes to settle stretched to a laborious hour and a half,  and  I  am  still  not absolutely certain what was agreed.

    If at all possible, it gets still worse.  As with the witnesses, the questions to be asked will also be determined in advance, again  by  the political  groups,  with  the biggest groups getting the lion's share of the action.  Given the limits of the knowledge -- to be kind --  of  the potential  questioners,  and  the  irresistible  urge to grandstand, the chances of any really penetrating questions being asked are remote.  And since  everyone  must  have  their  turn,  there  will  be  very limited opportunities for the supplementaries which tend to be more revealing.

    As an inquiry, it may  in  the  future  provide  good  theatre,  and perhaps  some  headlines  --  especially as Nick Brown and chief vet Jim Scudamore are to come before the committee.  But, as a  serious  attempt at  finding  out  what  really happened, the whole enterprise is doomed. The European Parliament, to the eternal shame of the British government, may  have  stolen a march in having a public inquiry, but the end result will be no better  that  the  empty  "inquiry  process"  that  has  been launched in Britain.

    The  fact  remains  that, until there is a proper public inquiry, as requested by the Federation of Small Businesses, and many  other  bodies besides, the many questions about what must be one of biggest government fiascos of all time will remain unanswered.

THE END

There is NO CopyRight on this document, which is one of many 1,000s of items freely available on http://www.SilentMajority.co.UK [some 20Mbs.] & 10s of 1,000s of items on The SilentMajority CD [with over 80Mbs.] which contains the entire web site & hosts other web sites also, 1,000s of apposite quotations, Articles, Speeches, Commentaries, ArtWork, & The FULL text of The EU Treaties, Several Related Books, The British Constitution, The American Constitution & Numerous related Items.
SilentMajority nor any associate thereof does NOT vouch for the veracity of the documents hosted on its site or CD nor any foreign language documents thereon & advises you consult your own solicitor on legal details as we do not accept liability for, nor presume to give legal advice ourselves.
For a copy of the CD please mail payment of £20.00 for UK deliver or £25.00 for ALL other Countries payable to:
Greg Lance – Watkins,
Glance Back Books,
17 Upper Church Street,
CHEPSTOW,
NP16 5EX
Monmouthshire,
GREAT BRITAIN
For delivery of 2 x CDs
one for your own use
+ one for on selling or donation to an individual of influence (media, politician, activist etc.)

IF YOU wish to use the Material Above, which is freely provided
Please have the Courtesy to Print It out in its entirety from start to finish with NO alterations, as displayed.
To This Point
.