ONE of Peterborough’s own Euro-MPs could soon become the next leader of a national political party.

UKIP’s current deputy leader and policy chief, David Campbell Bannerman, has emerged as a front runner to take over the leadership of the party, following the surprise resignation of Lord Pearson on Tuesday.

The Euro MP is currently enjoying widespread popularity amongst the party faithful, having written UKIP’s 2010 election manifesto.

If elected leader, Mr Campbell Bannerman – whose great, great uncle Sir Henry Campbell-Bannerman was Liberal Prime Minister between 1905 and 1908 – said he will make the issue of immigration a priority for his party.

He said: “I know that many people in Peterborough feel that their city has been changed beyond recognition because of the high levels of immigration. That is what local residents are saying and I will do my best for them.”

Mr Campbell Bannerman said he wanted to focus his efforts on targeting illegal immigrants.

British MEPs may be on the brink of defeating European proposals to TRIPLE maternity pay – which would cost cash strapped UK taxpayers £2 billion a year.

An EU vote was due to take place today but it has now been postponed for the third time.

UKIP Deputy leader David Campbell Bannerman said “This vote has been put back at least twice, which is unusual”. “It indicates that it is feared it would not go through as economies cannot afford it”.

The new law would give mums 100 per cent of pay for 20 weeks, up from 90 per cent for 6 weeks, followed by £123 for 33 weeks.

There is no cap on the amount women can earn and still benefit from 20 weeks at 100 per cent pay, so high-flying women should gain most.

I think none of us can fail to be sympathetic to the people of Krygyzstan for the recent suffering they have endured: 2,000 dead in rioting, 400,000 people displaced, mainly from the Uzbek community, placing an enormous pressure on Uzbekistan. This is ‘an immense crisis’, in the words of the Red Cross. This country is already the poorest and smallest of the former Soviet republics and it is tragic for a country that aspires so earnestly for parliamentary democracy to be in this kind of state. Indeed the triggers seem to have been the constitutional changes that they wish to aspire to. It is also one of the few Muslim nations in the world to be headed up by a woman (let’s that Iran follows shortly). This lady, Rosa Otunbayevat, is the first president of an ex-Communist Central Asian Country, and good for her.

So, all democratic nations should be doing all they can to support an aspiring parliamentary democracy of this sort but it is swimming in a sea of powerful, autocratic neighbours, and with the ever-present threat of radical Islam on its borders. This nation is a bulkhead of democracy and deserves our support. I fear that it has become a pawn in larger power games: it is now part of the Shanghai Co-operation organisation, which China and Russia use to dominate the central Asian land mass, and whose agenda should be regarded with some suspicion. China and Russia have incentives to destabilise the country to threaten the presence of an American Airbase there as well, with covert backing of opposition forces. May I conclude by saying that all democratic nations should support this brave aspiring but deeply troubled nation.

Thank you.

Mr President

There is something much deeper and significant about the External Action Service which is actually rooted in international law – about what constitutes a Nation State.  Under the guiding 1933 Montevideo Convention which the EU has accepted, there are four separate qualifications for a State.  First, a permanent population; second, a defined territory; third, a government, and finally, the capacity to enter into diplomatic relations with other states.

The EU already possesses three of these four: a permanent population – the Lisbon treaty makes us all EU citizens; a defined territory – the EU nations all have clear, defined boundaries; a government ?: well UKIP has long argued that this Parliament, the Council of Ministers and the real power – the Commission – are all part of an EU government.

That leaves the fourth and final component – the capacity for a nation state to enter into relations with other nation states.  Mr President, I believe that through the Lisbon Treaty, through Baroness Ashton’s role, and the External Action Service, the European Union now has all four criteria it needs under international law to declare itself a single nation state, a United States of Europe, and to do so overnight.

[ clapping from pro Federalist MEPs ]

I see there are many supporters here of that, and that confirms my speech and the threat to our nation states.

Thank you

Subject: EU funding and Islamic extremist terrorism in India

It has been alleged by the Hindu Forum of Britain that EU funding to British Islamic charities has been funnelled by the recipients to Islamic terrorist groups in India (see The Economic Times 27 July 2008 ‘Probe into UK charities funding terrorism in India’). This includes the group ‘Indian Mujahideen’ which carried out the bombings in The Gujarat province of India in July 2008, in which 45 people were killed. What investigation has the Commission launched into these allegations (if any), and what steps is the Commission taking to ensure EU funding to Islamic civil society groups is not misused or passed on to a third party?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

The Commission has examined the article ‘Probe into UK charities funding terrorism in India’ which appeared in The Economic Times of 27 July 2008 but has found no mention in this article of alleged misuse of European funds which might have been channelled towards terrorist activities.

All EU grants-financed projects are genuine development-oriented projects or aimed at strengthening the rule of law, democracy and respect of human rights. The organisations which implement these projects are selected through competitive calls for proposals and on the basis of proven experience on the part of the organisations in achieving the objectives defined for the Call for Proposal in question. In the selection process the status of the applicants and possible partners are carefully assessed. As far as payments are concerned, they are carried out when clearly agreed actions defined in the contract, have been implemented by the beneficiary. The final payment is released only on the basis of an external audit report confirming the eligibility of the actions implemented in line with the contractual provisions.

Subject: Lisbon Treaty amendment procedure

Article 48 of the Lisbon Treaty discusses the ways in which the Treaties can be amended in future. It mentions a distinction between a ‘simplified revision procedure’ and an ‘ordinary revision procedure’. Could the Commission provide details of the difference between these two procedures?

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission

In response to the question of the Honourable Member, the Commission would like to mention that only the ‘ordinary revision procedure’ (Article 48(2-5) of the Treaty on the European Union (TEU)) foresees the convening of a Convention and a conference of representatives of the governments of the Member States (Intergovernmental Conference) to agree on the Treaty changes that are subsequently to be ratified by all Member States according to their respective constitutional provisions.

Only the ‘ordinary revision procedure’ can be applied to the full range of Treaty changes, however, while the ‘simplified revision procedures’ are limited as regards the type of amendments they can address. The ‘simplified revision procedures’ can only deal with: The revision of all or part of the provisions of Part Three of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) relating to the internal policies and action of the Union (Article 48 paragraph 6 TEU); or The special cases in the TFEU and Title V of the TEU concerning authorisation of the Council to act by qualified majority (instead of unanimity) or adoption of acts by the ordinary legislative procedure (instead of a special legislative procedure), as laid out in Article 48 paragraph 7 of the TEU. Decisions with military implications or those in the area of defence are explicitly excluded.

For both cases of the ‘simplified revision procedure’, a unanimous decision of the European Council is required. In the first case, the European Council decision must be preceded by the consultation of the European Parliament and the Commission (and by the European Central Bank in the case of institutional changes in the monetary area). The decision shall not increase the competences conferred on the Union in the Treaties and it shall not enter into force until it is approved by the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

In the second case (so-called ‘passarelle clauses’), an envisaged decision of the European Council must be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision of the European Council shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision by unanimity and after obtaining the consent of the Parliament, which shall be given by a majority of its component members.

Subject: Lisbon Treaty and Immigration

Article 62 of the Lisbon Treaty states that ‘The Union shall develop a policy with a view to: (a) ensuring the absence of any controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders’. In reference to the comment ‘any nationality’, does this refer only to nationals of EU Member States, or any national of any state who is passing through EU territory?

Answer given by Ms Malmström on behalf of the Commission

The objective of establishing an area without internal borders in which the free movement of persons is ensured has been implemented through the establishment of the Schengen area. Currently, 22 Member States and three associated countries participate in this Schengen area without internal border control. The absence of any controls on persons, whatever their nationality, when crossing internal borders as mentioned in Article 62(1)(a) of the Lisbon Treaty [Article 77(1)(a) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union], covers
EU citizens as well as third‑country nationals.

Subject:  Nord Stream pipeline and Russian naval patrols

The creation of the Nord Stream pipeline between Russia and the EU will run through the Baltic Sea carrying oil and gas from Russia to the EU. Russia has stated that its navy will patrol this pipeline. Does the EU or any of its Member States in the region intend to participate militarily in these patrol missions?

Answer given by Mr Oettinger on behalf of the Commission

The planned Nord Stream project is an offshore ‘natural gas’ pipeline, which will be laid across the Baltic Sea, from Vyborg, Russia to Greifswald, Germany.

With respect to pipeline patrol to which reference is made by the Honourable Member, it should be underlined that the Commission has received no formal communication  that the Member States in the Baltic Region intend to participate militarily in patrol missions of the pipeline.

Subject:  EU amicus curiae briefs in death penalty cases in the USA

How many amicus curiae briefs did the EU submit in death penalty trials or hearings in the United States during the year 2008? Were these at national level or State level? What was the cost of submitting these briefs every year in the last five years?

Answer given by High Representative/Vice President Ashton on behalf of the Commission

The European Union submitted no amicus curiae briefs in death penalty trials in the United States during 2008. In 2005, the EU submitted amicus briefs to the United States Supreme Court, and to the State Supreme Courts of Oregon, Texas and Virginia. In 2006, the EU submitted an amicus brief to the State Supreme Court of Florida. All amicus curiae briefs have been prepared by lawyers acting on a pro bono basis and there have thus been no costs to the EU. The EU has been advised by an external consultant on all death penalty issues in the US,
including the preparation of amicus briefs, since 2001; the fees for this consultant have been met from the national budgets of the Presidencies and not from EU funds.

Subject: EU and Mano River Union

Does the EU have any relationship or dialogue with the Mano River Union countries of West Africa? If yes, could the Commission provide details?

Answer given by Mr Piebalgs on behalf of the Commission

The Mano River countries (Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea-Conakry, Ivory Coast) belong to the African, Caribbean and Pacific (ACP) group and therefore, their relations with the EU are governed by the EU‑ACP Partnership Agreement signed in Cotonou on 23 June 2000 and revised in Luxembourg on 25 June 2005.

The ‘Cotonou’ Agreement provides, inter alia, for reinforcement of the political dimension of relations between ACP countries and the EU. The EU maintains close links with Sierra Leone, Liberia and Ivory Coast in line with Article 8 of the Cotonou Agreement. A close political dialogue with these countries has been established. The main issues of the political dialogue include political and security situation in the country concerned, fight against corruption, human rights and democratic processes with focus on elections. The political dialogue with Mano River basin countries also comprises a regional dimension. In this context, security topics including the major security threats for the region (e.g. fight against drugs trafficking and other illegal traffics) are being discussed.

Given the political developments in Guinea-Conakry, the EU has adopted appropriate measures under Article 96 of the Cotonou Agreement suspending cooperation activities, and a common position imposing measures targeting the members of the junta and individuals associated with them, which are responsible for the violent repression or the political stalemate in the country and imposing an arms embargo. A recent follow up mission has been able to assess the progress made in implementing the roadmap towards elections and the return to constitutional order, with a view to progressively resume the suspended cooperation.

The EU is also one of the major multilateral donors in the Mano River area. The overall financial assistance through projects and budget support to Sierra Leone, Liberia and Ivory Coast amounts to almost EUR 600 million. The assistance to Guinea–Conakry is currently limited to emergency and humanitarian aid and activities in support of the political transition. A positive assessment of the roadmap implementation could allow for the progressive resumption of cooperation with Guinea.

The EU supports regional integration in West Africa through its mutual cooperation with the Economic Community of West Africa States (Ecowas) and/or the West African Economic and Monetary Union (UEMOA). The abovementioned countries take part in regional activities including the regional programmes.