European Union and Palestine: MEPs respond (sort of)

2 or 3 weeks ago I wrote to the London Members of the European Parliament about the humanitarian problems in Palestine caused by the attempts of Israel, the USA, and the European Union to punish the Palestinians for democratically electing the `wrong' party, Hamas.

I have had three replies so far.

Here's the shortest, from Mary Honeyball, (Labour):

Thank you for your email addressed to Mary Honeyball. She has asked me to advise you that she has noted your comments.

Kind regards, Helen Hegarty, Assistant to Mary Honeyball MEP.

Er, fair enough. With several million constituents (all Londoners) I suppose it might be a bit much to ask for a personal reply. And at least she had the courtesy to respond. But it doesn't tell me her attitude to the issue. Surely a short statement could have been appended?

Here's number 2, from Gerard Batten, (UKIP):

I am afraid that I don't approve of the EU interfering in world trade or giving funds to anyone. Its own accounts have not been signed off by the auditors in eleven years, and also the money it has handed over to the Palestinians in the past cannot be properly accounted for; i.e. we have no idea how much of it has ended up in the hands of terrorists. I also think it interesting that Yasser Arafat managed to die a multi-millionaire.

I attach a copy of my Personal Manifesto, which explains the basis upon which I hold my seat in the European Parliament. I am sure you will appreciate from this that I don't think the EU should be spending any British taxpayers’ money on anything.

Whether Britain sends aid to the Palestinians or not or reviews existing trade agreements should be something solely for the British government to decide so I am sorry but I will not be raising this matter in the Europarliament.

Yours sincerely,

Gerard Batten MEP

This is pretty much what I would expect UKIP to say. His response was extremely fast. He may not be willing to recognise the EU enough to take any action, but he does seem to respond to constituents quickly. Is that any comfort to you?

Here's number 3, from Dr Charles Tannock, (Conservative):


The Conservative Party does not support any funding to a Hamas led government of the Palestinian Authority (PA), unless they renounce violence, disarm and recognize the right of the State of Israel to exist. In the past, hundreds of millions of Euros from the European Union including the UK have been donated in aid to the PA with little to show for it in terms of securing a lasting peace as envisaged in Oslo in 1993, there has instead been widespread corruption and embezzlement of public funds. I personally, although accepting the democratic victory of Hamas, regard them as a banned terrorist organization as do the EU and the USA and, therefore, would never countenance supporting any funds for them until they change their charter and terrorist ideology. The recent suicide bombing outrage in Tel Aviv and ostensibly carried out by Islamic Jihad was publicly supported politically by the Hamas PA Government which is an outrage. Nevertheless, I am committed to lasting peace in the Middle East with a two-state solution in which a viable democratic Palestinian state can live together in peace and security side by side with Israel within internationally recognized borders.

I have to say that I was staggered by the extraordinarily one-sided nature of this response, so I replied:

Dear Charles Tannock,

Thank you very much for your reply. I appreciate the fact that you have taken the time to respond to my e-mail - not all your London MEP colleagues have had the courtesy to do so.

Normally I would not bother you any further, but I would ask you to allow me to respond very briefly to your comments, as they were so very one-sided. I can understand why you would consider Hamas to be a terrorist organisation. However, you make no reference whatever to the state terrorism of Israel, which I find astounding.

Israel has killed - and continues to kill - many more Palestinian citizens than the number of Israeli citizens killed by Palestinian organisations. The recent murders of the Palestinians on the beach in Gaza is only the latest manifestation of this. The current punishment of the entire civilian population of Gaza, and the kidnapping by Israel of elected politicians, is yet another example of their lawless behaviour (shamefully backed up by both the USA and the EU).You completely ignore this.

Secondly, it is of no importance what you think of Hamas. They have been democratically elected by the people of Palestine. The game the European Union is playing in refusing to recognise them is a disgraceful capitulation to US warmongering in the Middle East. Israel itself was established by terrorists (who killed British soldiers as I am sure you are aware). Many independent states have been established at least in part through methods you would describe as terrorism - why do you uniquely single out the Palestinians for this treatment?

The shameful capitulation of the EU to US foreign policy in the Middle East - which you appear to wholeheartedly concur with - can only further delay any possibility of peace. Israel is still stealing land from the Palestinians, is still inflicting terror upon them, is still a completely lawless state which behaves wth contempt towards international law, and is still bristing with nuclear weapons which are totally ignored by both the EU and the USA (in contrast to Iran, which doesn't have any!!!).

If the policy statement you sent me remains Conservative Party policy on the Middle East you will share responsibility with the USA for all the needless death and destruction that will continue there until a just peace is brought into being. As far as I am concerned, until you change your policy, you will be completely unelectable and I will never vote Conservative at any election - European, national or local.

Thank you for your time.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

So that leaves the following MEPs still to reply: John Bowis (Conservative), Claude Moraes (Labour), Baroness Ludford (Liberal Democrat), Syed Kamall (Conservative), Jean Lambert (Green), and Robert Evans (Labour).

Personally, I shall feel disinclined to vote for any of them at the next election if they can't even be bothered to send an acknowledgement. Just because they are working in Europe rather than in this country, that is no excuse for failing to be accountable to their constituents.

Blair `I'm 101% Behind It'

This is what he is 101% behind.

Check it out. Look at all the photos. Yes, I do mean all of them.

Do you still believe this anything to do with exporting democracy?

If Blair has his way, democracy in the UK will look like these photos.

It's not too late for you to do something about it.

Do we really need proportional representation?

After the local elections in May the Walthamstow Guardian was kind enough to publish a letter from me pointing out how lopsided the result was, due to the first-past-the-post voting system. In particular, I pointed out that Labour have 43% of the councillors from only 34% of the vote (and thus have 5 more councillors than they are entitled to by their share of the vote). And I also pointed to the fact that the Greens have no representation on the council despite more than 8,000 people voting for them. I concluded by stating that we needed proportional representation to get a fairer and more democratic result.

Not everyone agrees, of course. Someone called M.Griffiths had a letter published in response. As the Letters Page is not online I shall quote, `It is clearly not appreciated by Grouchy that it is proliferation of these groups that is causing the non-effective government we now experience'.

Now that struck me as quite an extraordinary statement. So I replied, and once again the Guardian was kind enough to publish, on the 8th June, in edited form. I have no complaint about the letter being edited (it was probably a bit longer than would be regarded as ideal), but it is a pity that they cut the part that tied my general point into the local elections. Never mind. Here it is, with the parts edited out placed in square brackets - like this [....].

Dear Editor,

M.Griffiths writes to oppose proportional representation because `it is the proliferation of these groups that is causing the non-effective government we now experience' (Letters June 1). Perhaps M.Griffiths could tell us which of these groups is responsible for the continuing occupation of Iraq, the attacks on our civil liberties [(ID cards, police `shoot to kill' policy)], the undermining of Parliament through the Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill, or the lunatic privatisation of the NHS, education and council housing? Which group is responsible for the fact that while the privatised water companies post large profits for their shareholders they allow huge amounts of leakage and claim we are suffering from a drought?

The problem is the direct opposite. [Our foreign policy is run by the USA, and our domestic policy is run in the interests of big business to the detriment of us all].] All three of the main parties are neoconservative in foreign policy (i.e. do what the USA tells them to), and are neoliberal in domestic policy (privatising everything in sight in the interests of big business, and transferring wealth to the already powerful). The first past the post electoral system allows the big parties to ignore the wishes of the electorate. We need proportional representation not because it would be some kind of magic solution, but because it would begin to force the parties to listen to what we want,[rather than Rupert Murdoch and his ilk.]

[The current government was elected by 21.8% of the electorate (33% of those who voted). There is no majority for their current extremist policies. In the local elections Labour received 43% of the councillors from 34% of the vote - and have 5 more councillors than their share of the vote entitles them to. It took 2,229 votes to elect each Labour councillor, but 2,926 to elect each Liberal Democrat, and 3,132 to elect each Conservative. Perhaps M.Griffiths can tell us what it is about that that ensures good local government? I am neither a member or supporter of the Green Party, but I have no doubt that they have sufficient support across the borough to deserve to be represented on the Council.]

We need the smaller parties such as the Greens and Respect to represent the interests of ordinary people rather than the big corporations and the USA. [We need proportional representation to begin to get a more democratic system of national and local government, where what the majority of people want can no longer be ignored. That is called democracy. That is what we need.]

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

US war crimes in Ramadi

The destruction of Fallujah, and the mass murder of its citizens, wasn't enough for the current US government. Now they are repeating the war crimes in Ramadi, capital of the same province in Iraq. However, if you rely on BBC News to keep you informed about what's going on in the world you can expect to continue in blissful ignorance. Not one word about it.

If you want to complain about the poverty of the BBC's coverage of events in Iraq, go here. This is what I said:

Why has BBC News not reported anything about the current US assault on Ramadi in Iraq? This is shaping to be a major war crime - like the destruction of Fallujah but (as far as I know) the BBC has not said one word about it. Details can be found at http://www.antiwar.com/jamail/?articleid=9136 . Civilians are being murdered, and a city destroyed. Why are you pretending nothing is happening?

The Independent abuses Chavez again

I have referred before to the Independent on Sunday abusing the democratically elected Venezuelan leader, Hugo Chavez. Now the daily paper has been up to the same old trick. Here's my letter of complaint to the paper.

Dear Readers' Editor,

I was really quite astonished to read the caption to the picture of Peruvian Presidential candidate Alan Garcia on p. 22 of Tuesday 6 June's edition of The Independent. This is how it reads, `Alan Garcia is widely regarded as the man who will save Peru from the Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez.'

`The Venezuelan dictator'??? Come again? How many elections does the man have to win to be regarded by Independent journalists as legitimately elected? My dictionary has two definitions of `dictator':

1) someone who uses force to take and keep power in a country. If your journalists think this applies, they are simply delusional.

2) someone who tells people what to do and refuses to listen to their opinions. This definition could be used against many politicians if a journalist was so-minded. It would certainly apply far more to Tony Blair and George W.Bush than to Chavez.

In case you need reminding, Chavez has not illegally invaded another country on false premises despite being authoritatively warned that this would be counter-productive. He is also not threatening Iran with an illegal use of force for sticking to their treaty rights to develop civil nuclear power.

It seems that rather than providing factual reporting you are supplying propaganda on behalf of the current governments in Washington and London. I would be genuinely interested to hear just how `independent' you think that is, and therefore would appreciate a reply from you about this.

Thank you for your time.

Yours faithfully,

Grouchy.

And, of course, they didn't reply. But at least they published a letter expressing similar sentiments later in the week.

Walthamstow MP watch: Legislative & Regulatory Reform Bill

You may not have heard much about this bill. The media have paid little attention to it. But it is a first rate menace to the little bit of parliamentary democracy that we have. Put simply, it will take away from Parliament, if a Government minister so chooses, the right to vote on new Bills, or revisions to existing Acts (with a very small number of exceptions).

New laws will be made, if a minister so chooses, purely on the say-so of the minister. If the word `dictatorship' springs into your mind, you wouldn't be far wrong. The Save Parliament blog summarises where the bill is now (going through the House of Lords). I wrote to Neil Gerrard, MP for Walthamstow, back in March. He replied like this:

The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds
of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the
same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation.
This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change
when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.

Well, that might seem reassuring, but what has Neil Gerrard actually done? You might think he would say something about such an important Bill on his website, but there is no mention of it. If you want to know, you have to check out his voting record at the Public Whip. And guess what? He has opposed every effort to amend the Bill in order to reduce its malignant effects. So I wrote to him to ask him what he was doing:

Dear Neil Gerrard,

I wrote to you previously about my deep concerns over the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill. You replied as follows:

`The Legislative and Regulatory Reform Bill is being justified on the grounds of removing unnecessary burdens from business. I have no problem with removing outdated and unnecessary regulation. However I have a major problem if at the same time powers are taken away from parliament in respect of other legislation. This Bill has so far had very little attention, but I believe that will change when it comes to the Commons again, as I know a considerable number of other MPs who like me are concerned about this Bill and will be seeking amendments to make sure it does no more than it should and relates to a narrow field only.'

I would be grateful if you could reconcile this statement with your actual voting record on the bill, where you appear to be doing nothing to support attempts to increase parliamentary scrutiny and control. In particular -

Division 232 - an attempt to increase the requirement for ministers to behave `reasonably'. You voted against.
Division 234 - an attempt to reduce ministers ability to change law commission reports without parliamentary approval. You voted against.
Division 235 - an attempt to ensure that the provisions of the act are demonstrably used for the stated purpose of `reducing the burdens on business'. You voted against.
Division 238 - an attempt to bring persons delegated by ministers to have the power to change legislation under parliamentary scrutiny. You voted against.
Division 240 - an attempt to increase the possibility of parlaimentary veto on an order passed under the bill. You voted against.
Division 241 - the Bill's Third Reading. I was absolutely stunned to see that you voted in favour of this extremely dangerous piece of legislation despite your previous assurances.

If you ask your constituents I am quite sure that a majority will tell you that they did not elect you to parliament to give away vital powers of parliamentary oversight to an already overmighty executive. So why on earth are you doing so,and how can you possibly justify it? I feel betrayed.

Yours sincerely,

Grouchy.

No reply as yet.

Humanitarian catastrophe in Palestine

As the Rolling Stones once memorably told us, `you can't always get what you want'. The good ole USA destabilises, undermines, and invades other countries - supposedly in the name of democracy. But when they get it, they don't like it. For example, the current attempt to starve out the Palestinians for voting for the `wrong' party.

Little Georgie Bush doesn't like Hamas (so naturally his creepy hanger-on Tony doesn't like them either). Hamas came to power (insofar as they have any) in a democratic election. No problem. Just put the pressure on international aid-givers to stop them from providing the supplies the Palestinians need to live (while Israel prevents them from getting at their own money).

Result - starvation, and the eruption of feuding between democratically-elected Hamas and Georgie's chosen ones, Fatah. Those Palestinians just haven't got the hang of democracy yet. You're supposed to look at the choices (if there are any) then do as the USA tells you - after all, that's what we do in `democratic' Britain.

The good people at War On Want don't accept this. You shouldn't either. What can you do? For a start, how about writing to your Members of the European Parliament to urge the suspension of the EU-Israel Association Agreement - under which Israel receives trading preferences - until Israel stops violating the Palestinians rights.

This is my letter to the London MEPs:

"I am writing as a constituent of yours. I am very concerned about the current situation in Palestine. UN reports reveal that 60% of Palestinians are now living in acute poverty and that over half of all Palestinians are completely dependent on food aid. These increases in poverty are a direct result of Israel’s Occupation of the Palestinian Territories and its intensification of action against the Palestinian people over the past four years.

The UK Government’s policy of close engagement has failed to produce any significant results. Neither Britain nor the EC seems to be reacting with appropriate concern to the recent killing of so many Palestinians on the beach in Gaza - not the first time such an event has occurred. It is now time for action to pressure the Israeli government to abide by international law.

The EU must suspend the EU-Israel Association Agreement, under which Israel enjoys trading preferences with the EU. Article 2 of that Agreement makes Israel’s trading preferences conditional upon respect for human rights, a condition which UN specialists say has been breached by Israel’s continued violation of Palestinians’ rights. I urge the British government to press for this suspension immediately and to halt all arms sales to Israel until the Occupation is brought to an end, and I would ask you to take this matter forward in the European Parliament.

Thank you for your time.
Yours sincerely,

Grouchy"

BBC still covering up for war criminals

This evening's Six O'Clock News bulletin reported on the death of Al-Zaqarwi in Iraq. Personally, I had no time for him, and if he was responsible for attacks on Shia civilians there as claimed, then his death is no loss. However, in the course of this report the BBC claimed that he was responsible for the biggest crimes against civilians in Iraq.

What about Fallujah then? Who was responsible for that? The BBC are still making propaganda for the war criminals in Washington and London. This is the text of my complaint to the BBC:

"BBC 6 o'clock news tonight claimed that Al-Zarqawi was responsible for the biggest crimes against civilians in Iraq.

What about the destruction of Fallujah and the mass murder of civilians there? What about the illegal use of chemical weapons in the course of that war crime?

That was nothing to do with Al-Zarqawi. It was purely the responsibility of George W.Bush, backed up by Tony Blair.

When is the BBC going to stop attempting to cover up for the war criminals in Washington and London? All you are doing is undermining your own credibility, and undermining the argument that the BBC should continue to be funded by the licence fee. If BBC News chooses to put out propaganda, you have no right to be funded by the British licence-fee payer."

If you wish to register your opinions on the quality of the BBC's `News' operation, go here.

Incidentally, the BBC reported that other people, including a child, were killed in the attack on Zarqawi. This is very reminiscent of the way Israel targets Palestinians activists with not a care in the world about how many ordinary people they kill.

Congratulations USA. You just murdered another child in Iraq, and you don't give a shit about it.