9.00 We have an ECON prep meeting at which we discuss who wants to do what of the upcoming work. There is a wish by Andreas Losco to have more detailed discussion of the lines that rapporteurs and shadows take. I think we all agree this is a nice idea but in practice we are not managing to get meetings organised. During the exchanges he refers to the possibility ‘that Sharon may take some extreme Liberal position that the Italian delegation can not agree with’. I take this as a compliment, especially in the context of the ECON committee.
10.00 Back to the office and final checking of recorded votes, the Kashmir voting list and our red lines for what is sufficient to allow us to vote positively at the end.
.
12.00 Votes. We have the vote on Donnici and they vote not to approve his credentials. Graham Watson gets up says it is illegal and that as we say in the UK ‘see you in court’. The Kashmir votes take ages but we eventually pass a combination that it just about OK for everyone. I am slightly annoyed as the Socialists still seem to only vote for their amendments and never for ours even when ours are sometimes better. If we did the same to them, the end result would be bad news for the content of the report. This should be above party politics.
14.00 I have a delegation from the UK permanent representation and the UK cabinet office to discuss patents.
15.00 Meeting with Fidelity Iternational about UCITS, Mifid and retail savings.
16.00 Catch up with phone calls, emails and packing. Get car to Basle at 7pm. Traffic after arrival at Luton a nightmare (do they not realise lots of flights get in around 11 pm and it is a stupid time to close the motorway) so we get home after midnight which my body clock thinks is after 1am.
Thursday, 24 May 2007
Wednesday, 23 May 2007
The Donnici Code
9.00 Arrive in office. Listen to a little bit of the roaming debate. Things are moving a little on the Donnici matter with amendments. It seems to be very much an Italian thing now and there are calls to be ‘respectful’ of parliamentary processes. If I speak I do not think I will be respectful I will say it is shameful and will bring shame on the Parliament when the sophistry of the arguments put forward is exposed (which I would expect the courts to do). However we have very little speaking time. I have already had a minute of my Gierek report time taken just to give us 2 minutes and a minute for me and a minute for Cocilova is not very much. As it means so much to the Italians to speak on this matter I will probably have to give Cocilova priority over myself (again).
10.00 We have a meeting on the amendments to the financial services white paper. There is some good discussion and some progress is made but we do not get anywhere on the sections about hedge funds. I indicate that it has to be revisited. We keep at it until the bell rings for us to go and vote. We will need a lot more time I think and I wonder whether it is realistic to try and vote on this in our next committee week as that only gives us as short time on Monday 4 June to reach agreement. Anyway, we shall see. .
12.00 – 13.00 votes. No incidents with headphones or otherwise. We vote on the Lulling report on excise duty. It is a mess and conflicting amendments are passed so at the end the rapporteur signals to her group to vote against and it falls.
13.00 Kangaroo Group lunch on the privatisation of postal services. I have decided to go because I want to find out more about how different universal service options have worked. I have to leave early before all the discussions end for another meeting.
14.00 Meeting with the Executive Director and several others from the ICHR Kashmir Centre on the Kashmir report. We discuss the original report, the committee amendments and those for plenary. I say that my ‘bottom line’ will be the same as in the Committee voting, if an amendment gets through that includes self determination, then I will vote in favour even if other amendments have been lost, but if nothing on self determination gets through then I will vote against. They seem to think this is a reasonable dividing line. This whole issue has of course been rumbling on all week, and last, with a lot of work going on behind the scenes to get agreement as far as possible from Emma.
15.00 I had intended to go to an SME intergoup meeting on labour law, but as yet I have not finalised the voting on the Gierek report nor worked out what to put into my 2 minute speech. I am still trying to amend paragraph about open standards in order to clarify that the definition given is not an official Commission policy (which it is not). However since the wording proposal came from the Committee secretariat and all Groups signed up to it nobody now wants to concede it may not be accurate. It is rather annoying that they say ‘it is only an own initiative report’. I reply that it is no excuse to be inaccurate! I have circulated a note, but since there will be objection from the floor if I put in an oral amendment there is really no point. Trying to delete the paragraph will be misinterpreted as an attack on an idealistic point, so in the end I will probably give up on this and satisfy myself with correcting the patent bits. I decide to concentrate my speech on three of the things that have been included in the report from my ECON opinion and to deal with the patent issue. Dealing with this issue and other emails and correspondence takes me up to time for Group.
19.00 Group meeting. We have an exchange of views with Gary Kasparov on the political situation in Russia. It is very interesting indeed and he is a good speaker.
21.00 Into the hemicycle for the debate on the Donnici credentials. I have agreed not to speak. All the speakers in the debate are Italian and they remain more deferential to the dignity of the legal affairs committee than I feel inclined to be on this matter. Gargarni gives a rather better presentation that he has in committee on the subject – just as well as this is public and not in camera. However I still believe it fatally flawed. Here is the gist of the affair as I understand it. I have dubbed it the Donnici code because it is a bit unbelievable.
The Donnici Code. At the time of the Italian elections for the European Parliament one candidate, Orchetto who would have been elected as an MEP, withdrew. At that time he was already a member of the Italian Senate, which he would have had to resign in order to take up the MEP seat. Further he was on a composite list of opposition candidates (everyone except Berlusconi’s party) and as is common practice in Italy famous people go at the top of a list to indicate the type of list, but there are agreements that they will withdraw. Later on after the Italian General Election when some MEPs gave up their seats to go to the national Parliament, Orchetto changed his mind about being an MEP and withdrew his withdrawal which was agreed was possible by the Italian initial court. This prevented Donnici, who was next in line, from becoming an MEP. Donnici objected both to the European Parliament and to the appeal court in Italy.
In the Parliament the legal affairs committee approved the credentials of Orchetto (that is turning down Donnici’s objection) it seems among other things on the basis that it is necessary to follow the ruling of a member state on who is an MEP. But then the Italian Supreme Court upheld Donnici’s complaint and ruled that it was not possible to withdraw a withdrawal and therefore the correct MEP was in fact Donnici and the European Parliament was informed.
At this stage it seemed as if it would then be a routine matter to reapply the logic that approved Orchetto, i.e that the Member State ruling applies. In accordance with tradition, and because approval of credentials is not normally controversial, Gargarni, the chair of the legal affairs committee undertook the rapporteurship. He then constructed an argument that Orchetto should remain an MEP.
As far as I am able to sensibly interpret the presentation (which as I have said was much better in plenary than at the in camera committee stage) it is broadly that the Italian court did not take into account EU law and therefore the only mechanism to get that taken into account is to get it reviewed by the ECJ. The refusal to approve credentials does that in that both the Italian State and Donnici can take the European Parliament to the ECJ.
So that is the proposed ‘mechanism’ and I suppose it has some logic. However it seems to me that the EU law that it is alleged has not been taken into account is not relevant and the interpretation argued to make it to make it relevant is distinctly dodgy. It essentially defines a candidate on a list as a potential MEP, then applies rules for ‘not mandating an MEP’ to the potential MEP and stretched the not mandating (which I had assumed meant instructing how to vote) to any withdrawal agreement or agreement about resigning from a list.
Now I can fully understand the Italian MEPs wishing in general to get rid of their list deals for future elections, I do not think it is fair to use this as the excuse to try and extract a comment upon it from the ECJ. Anyhow that is just about the most favourable way I can express my views. [If you read on to tomorrow when we vote you will see that Graham Watson, our ALDE Group leader says ‘see you in court.]’
22.00 ish Back to the plenary for the Innovation debate. I am too tired to stay to the end so I leave after my speech. Then back to my hotel.
10.00 We have a meeting on the amendments to the financial services white paper. There is some good discussion and some progress is made but we do not get anywhere on the sections about hedge funds. I indicate that it has to be revisited. We keep at it until the bell rings for us to go and vote. We will need a lot more time I think and I wonder whether it is realistic to try and vote on this in our next committee week as that only gives us as short time on Monday 4 June to reach agreement. Anyway, we shall see. .
12.00 – 13.00 votes. No incidents with headphones or otherwise. We vote on the Lulling report on excise duty. It is a mess and conflicting amendments are passed so at the end the rapporteur signals to her group to vote against and it falls.
13.00 Kangaroo Group lunch on the privatisation of postal services. I have decided to go because I want to find out more about how different universal service options have worked. I have to leave early before all the discussions end for another meeting.
14.00 Meeting with the Executive Director and several others from the ICHR Kashmir Centre on the Kashmir report. We discuss the original report, the committee amendments and those for plenary. I say that my ‘bottom line’ will be the same as in the Committee voting, if an amendment gets through that includes self determination, then I will vote in favour even if other amendments have been lost, but if nothing on self determination gets through then I will vote against. They seem to think this is a reasonable dividing line. This whole issue has of course been rumbling on all week, and last, with a lot of work going on behind the scenes to get agreement as far as possible from Emma.
15.00 I had intended to go to an SME intergoup meeting on labour law, but as yet I have not finalised the voting on the Gierek report nor worked out what to put into my 2 minute speech. I am still trying to amend paragraph about open standards in order to clarify that the definition given is not an official Commission policy (which it is not). However since the wording proposal came from the Committee secretariat and all Groups signed up to it nobody now wants to concede it may not be accurate. It is rather annoying that they say ‘it is only an own initiative report’. I reply that it is no excuse to be inaccurate! I have circulated a note, but since there will be objection from the floor if I put in an oral amendment there is really no point. Trying to delete the paragraph will be misinterpreted as an attack on an idealistic point, so in the end I will probably give up on this and satisfy myself with correcting the patent bits. I decide to concentrate my speech on three of the things that have been included in the report from my ECON opinion and to deal with the patent issue. Dealing with this issue and other emails and correspondence takes me up to time for Group.
19.00 Group meeting. We have an exchange of views with Gary Kasparov on the political situation in Russia. It is very interesting indeed and he is a good speaker.
21.00 Into the hemicycle for the debate on the Donnici credentials. I have agreed not to speak. All the speakers in the debate are Italian and they remain more deferential to the dignity of the legal affairs committee than I feel inclined to be on this matter. Gargarni gives a rather better presentation that he has in committee on the subject – just as well as this is public and not in camera. However I still believe it fatally flawed. Here is the gist of the affair as I understand it. I have dubbed it the Donnici code because it is a bit unbelievable.
The Donnici Code. At the time of the Italian elections for the European Parliament one candidate, Orchetto who would have been elected as an MEP, withdrew. At that time he was already a member of the Italian Senate, which he would have had to resign in order to take up the MEP seat. Further he was on a composite list of opposition candidates (everyone except Berlusconi’s party) and as is common practice in Italy famous people go at the top of a list to indicate the type of list, but there are agreements that they will withdraw. Later on after the Italian General Election when some MEPs gave up their seats to go to the national Parliament, Orchetto changed his mind about being an MEP and withdrew his withdrawal which was agreed was possible by the Italian initial court. This prevented Donnici, who was next in line, from becoming an MEP. Donnici objected both to the European Parliament and to the appeal court in Italy.
In the Parliament the legal affairs committee approved the credentials of Orchetto (that is turning down Donnici’s objection) it seems among other things on the basis that it is necessary to follow the ruling of a member state on who is an MEP. But then the Italian Supreme Court upheld Donnici’s complaint and ruled that it was not possible to withdraw a withdrawal and therefore the correct MEP was in fact Donnici and the European Parliament was informed.
At this stage it seemed as if it would then be a routine matter to reapply the logic that approved Orchetto, i.e that the Member State ruling applies. In accordance with tradition, and because approval of credentials is not normally controversial, Gargarni, the chair of the legal affairs committee undertook the rapporteurship. He then constructed an argument that Orchetto should remain an MEP.
As far as I am able to sensibly interpret the presentation (which as I have said was much better in plenary than at the in camera committee stage) it is broadly that the Italian court did not take into account EU law and therefore the only mechanism to get that taken into account is to get it reviewed by the ECJ. The refusal to approve credentials does that in that both the Italian State and Donnici can take the European Parliament to the ECJ.
So that is the proposed ‘mechanism’ and I suppose it has some logic. However it seems to me that the EU law that it is alleged has not been taken into account is not relevant and the interpretation argued to make it to make it relevant is distinctly dodgy. It essentially defines a candidate on a list as a potential MEP, then applies rules for ‘not mandating an MEP’ to the potential MEP and stretched the not mandating (which I had assumed meant instructing how to vote) to any withdrawal agreement or agreement about resigning from a list.
Now I can fully understand the Italian MEPs wishing in general to get rid of their list deals for future elections, I do not think it is fair to use this as the excuse to try and extract a comment upon it from the ECJ. Anyhow that is just about the most favourable way I can express my views. [If you read on to tomorrow when we vote you will see that Graham Watson, our ALDE Group leader says ‘see you in court.]’
22.00 ish Back to the plenary for the Innovation debate. I am too tired to stay to the end so I leave after my speech. Then back to my hotel.
Tuesday, 22 May 2007
Gierek, Votes, AmCham
8.00 Our Lib Dem Parliamentary Party breakfast.
9.00 Working Group B. We are discussing the Gierek innovation report. I point out that I want to vote differently to our shadow and in general the meeting is with me but the shadow is not there so we do not actually take a decision. I negotiate with the administrator of the committee who says he will check it out with Toia, the shadow and come back to me. I say that if we can not agree it has to go to Group.
11.00 Back to the office. Some so-called compromise amendments on the report on the financial services white paper have come in. They look more like compilations than compromises. Many of my amendments have been presented in a way that more or less says notwithstanding (what Sharon Bowles says) it is the opposite. Amendments by John Purvis seem to have got the same treatment. I suppose this is only round 1, but we have a very short timescale given next week is a constituency week.
12.00 – 13.30 Votes. We all pile in, put our headsets on (usually with one ear listening to the hemicycle and one on the translation as it is the only way to put your hand up at the right time otherwise by the time the translation comes through a late yes looks like a no). Someone starts to speak and then I suddenly realise I can not understand and fiddle with my translation channel. Danuta is doing the same, then others and I discover we have all picked up earphones of the next place along. After headset swap along the row we all settle down again.
14.15 Meeting with AmCham (American Chamber of Commerce) financial services people. Most of these I know and see regularly, but it is useful to have a collective meeting. We discuss general issues of supervision, Solvency ll, payments and the white paper on financial services and various other things.
15.15 I go to pick up my flight tickets for trip to Lisbon at the start of the Portugese Presidency.
16.00 Do radio interview with Quadrant on roaming charges.
17.00 Meeting with Royal and Sun Alliance about Solvency ll issues.
18.30 Go to Group where Italian prime Minister Prodi is speaking to us. During the meeting our administrator comes over with Toia’s comments on my voting suggestions. With a bit of toing and froing we reach agreement. Group meeting then continues. I leave at about 8pm in order to collect together all the financial services papers ready for compromise meeting in the morning and take them back to my hotel. It is suggested that maybe I would like to speak in the debate on Donnici. I readily agree. I think it would be good if some non-Italians speak.
9.00 Working Group B. We are discussing the Gierek innovation report. I point out that I want to vote differently to our shadow and in general the meeting is with me but the shadow is not there so we do not actually take a decision. I negotiate with the administrator of the committee who says he will check it out with Toia, the shadow and come back to me. I say that if we can not agree it has to go to Group.
11.00 Back to the office. Some so-called compromise amendments on the report on the financial services white paper have come in. They look more like compilations than compromises. Many of my amendments have been presented in a way that more or less says notwithstanding (what Sharon Bowles says) it is the opposite. Amendments by John Purvis seem to have got the same treatment. I suppose this is only round 1, but we have a very short timescale given next week is a constituency week.
12.00 – 13.30 Votes. We all pile in, put our headsets on (usually with one ear listening to the hemicycle and one on the translation as it is the only way to put your hand up at the right time otherwise by the time the translation comes through a late yes looks like a no). Someone starts to speak and then I suddenly realise I can not understand and fiddle with my translation channel. Danuta is doing the same, then others and I discover we have all picked up earphones of the next place along. After headset swap along the row we all settle down again.
14.15 Meeting with AmCham (American Chamber of Commerce) financial services people. Most of these I know and see regularly, but it is useful to have a collective meeting. We discuss general issues of supervision, Solvency ll, payments and the white paper on financial services and various other things.
15.15 I go to pick up my flight tickets for trip to Lisbon at the start of the Portugese Presidency.
16.00 Do radio interview with Quadrant on roaming charges.
17.00 Meeting with Royal and Sun Alliance about Solvency ll issues.
18.30 Go to Group where Italian prime Minister Prodi is speaking to us. During the meeting our administrator comes over with Toia’s comments on my voting suggestions. With a bit of toing and froing we reach agreement. Group meeting then continues. I leave at about 8pm in order to collect together all the financial services papers ready for compromise meeting in the morning and take them back to my hotel. It is suggested that maybe I would like to speak in the debate on Donnici. I readily agree. I think it would be good if some non-Italians speak.
Monday, 21 May 2007
Getting ready for the week ahead
5.30 Off to Luton airport. I am told by some of my fellow travellers that in September this flight is being discontinued. So I will have to find another plan. Seems as though the return flight will be at an earlier time (which will be good) but I will probably have to switch to Heathrow or Stanstead outbound. When I get to Basle there is no car there to take me to the Parliament so I have to hang around for an hour to get the car picking people up from the Heathrow flight.
13.00 arrive in the office. Dot (my stagiere) is here this week to give her a taste of what it is like at the Strasbourg end of things before she leaves. In theory this is not a busy week for me in terms of reports for which I am responsible, but there seem to be committee meetings and compromise amendment meetings building up. We start to print out all the documents piling in for these meetings. There are some things in the Gierek report on innovation that I do not like and I get an email from EPP MEP Lehne asking my view on the same paragraphs. I agree deletion a good idea, then I also come up with some partial deletion options that may be better and less of an adversarial approach. People are already beginning to ask which shadow rapporteur am I going to ‘do over’ this week! Not really fair, but another good reason to try and find compromise on partial deletions.
15.30 – 17.00 Group meeting. There have been elections for the European Parliament in Bulgaria so our colleagues who were the interim ‘appointed’ observers/MEPs now depart and are replaced by new people, all except one who stood in the elections and is returning and another who looks the same but turns out to be the identical twin brother!
17.30 The Lib Dem Parliamentary Party meeting. Nothing beyond ordinary discussion of upcoming votes. This session we will be voting on the outcome of the ‘accelerated second reading’ procedure on roaming changes for mobile phone calls. We are generally happy with the result, within the context of having to regulate being necessary in view of market failure. The safety ‘Eurotariff’ will be offered to all customers. Those that do not reply will be switched to it unless they have already negotiated a different roaming package, which some regular travellers may have done. This is not quite opt-in or opt-out, a bit more of a hoki-koki in out and shake it all about as Fiona put it! However it seems workable.
18.00 Back to the office to pick up papers for JURI (legal affairs) committee meeting on the Donnici affair again. A resolution has now been drafted, which I think is completely wrong in its logic
19.00 Legal affairs committee. The discussions proceed much as before with us and the UEN saying the conclusions do not make sense. We insist that we want a debate in plenary. We eventually take a vote and the resolution is passed. Not sure whether we have got a plenary debate or not, I guess it will go the Parliament bureau or Presidents or something like that to decide.
21.00 ECON committee with vote on postal services. Get to hotel at about 10.30
13.00 arrive in the office. Dot (my stagiere) is here this week to give her a taste of what it is like at the Strasbourg end of things before she leaves. In theory this is not a busy week for me in terms of reports for which I am responsible, but there seem to be committee meetings and compromise amendment meetings building up. We start to print out all the documents piling in for these meetings. There are some things in the Gierek report on innovation that I do not like and I get an email from EPP MEP Lehne asking my view on the same paragraphs. I agree deletion a good idea, then I also come up with some partial deletion options that may be better and less of an adversarial approach. People are already beginning to ask which shadow rapporteur am I going to ‘do over’ this week! Not really fair, but another good reason to try and find compromise on partial deletions.
15.30 – 17.00 Group meeting. There have been elections for the European Parliament in Bulgaria so our colleagues who were the interim ‘appointed’ observers/MEPs now depart and are replaced by new people, all except one who stood in the elections and is returning and another who looks the same but turns out to be the identical twin brother!
17.30 The Lib Dem Parliamentary Party meeting. Nothing beyond ordinary discussion of upcoming votes. This session we will be voting on the outcome of the ‘accelerated second reading’ procedure on roaming changes for mobile phone calls. We are generally happy with the result, within the context of having to regulate being necessary in view of market failure. The safety ‘Eurotariff’ will be offered to all customers. Those that do not reply will be switched to it unless they have already negotiated a different roaming package, which some regular travellers may have done. This is not quite opt-in or opt-out, a bit more of a hoki-koki in out and shake it all about as Fiona put it! However it seems workable.
18.00 Back to the office to pick up papers for JURI (legal affairs) committee meeting on the Donnici affair again. A resolution has now been drafted, which I think is completely wrong in its logic
19.00 Legal affairs committee. The discussions proceed much as before with us and the UEN saying the conclusions do not make sense. We insist that we want a debate in plenary. We eventually take a vote and the resolution is passed. Not sure whether we have got a plenary debate or not, I guess it will go the Parliament bureau or Presidents or something like that to decide.
21.00 ECON committee with vote on postal services. Get to hotel at about 10.30
Wednesday, 16 May 2007
Group Meeting on Kashmir
9.00 – 12.30 Arrive in office and go straight down to Group meeting for Kashmir discussion and other issues. After that it is tidy up time in the office, packing the trunk for Strasbourg next week. The Parliament is closed tomorrow. I head off at 2pm for Eurostar which means I will get to London in time to go the Parliamentary Party meeting in Westminster. I have not managed to get back on a Wednesday for some time so this is useful.
Tuesday, 15 May 2007
Kashmir, Credit Suisse, final Conciliation on Rome II
9.00 Get to the office. For once I do not seem to have a deadline upon me so I can look at various papers ready for speaking this evening to the Federation of Small Businesses at their South East policy unit dinner. Or at least that is how it starts! I then get a request from Diana’s office about whether I can attend the final conciliation meeting on Rome ll which could go on all evening until midnight. We try to see if anyone else is available, but they are not so I have to tell the FSB that duty calls. This will be my first conciliation, so it will be interesting.
13.00 LDEPP. Again a relatively routine agenda. The big issue is Kashmir, but we will resolve that in Group.
14.00 The EP FSF are holding their first annual forum on solvency ll. I go along to the first part. I can not stay for all of it as I have other appointments.
16.00 I have a meeting with Credit Suisse about the detention in Romania of one of their employees who was responsible for some of the privatisations in Romania. They were also going to see Sarah but as I have also invited some Romanian colleagues we decide to have one big meeting in my office. The main problem is one of due process in that it could take 5 or 6 years for the case to get to court. Anyway, Sarah and I decide to write to Commissioner Frattini and ask for a meeting next week.
17.00 Group. We discuss the Kashmir report. We manage to get an amendment tabled that says the inability to meet conditions for a plebiscite now does not rule it out for the future. We also discuss the new format of Parliamentary timetable proposed for next year. There are more non Brussels weeks so as to allow for delegation visits but some of us are concerned this will cause our ‘constituency’ weeks to get filled up with travel instead of being able to do constituency work. The other weeks are all mixed up more. In theory it gives more committee time. I am a bit concerned that it leaves very little time for working on reports etc.
19.00 Back to the office. I definitely have to do the conciliation. Diana is optimistic it will not take too long, others less so. It seems to me that all the times that have been submitted in the sweepstake on how long it will last are over optimistic.
20.00 We are all downstairs on level 5 where two committee rooms are being used for the Conciliation. The Council are in one room in ‘trilogue’ discussions with Diana Wallis (Rapporteur for the Parliament on Rome ll) and the Commission. The Parliament conciliation committee has another room, we also have some Commission people with us. Diana come to us and explains where we have got to and asks for a negotiating mandate within a range of options that she thinks the parliament could accept. Some advice/assistance on support for some wording is also sought from Commissioner Frattini who is in with us.
20.40 Diana heads back to do battle with the Council. The rest of us are invited to hang around. An impressive array of sandwiches, fruit and drinks is laid on which is replenished constantly. Some people go back to their offices waiting to be rung when it is time to reconvene (which could be at any time and several times), I intend to do that but actually find quite a few people I want to talk to are their from both the Parliament and Commission so end up having useful discussions instead.
23.05 Diana has emerged from the Council so we now reconvene in our room and discuss the latest state of affairs. We really are down to haggling over a few words and messengers are sent from one room to another and back. Eventually all is agreed and we take a vote. Then we go and join the Council in their room and formally agree that we have agreed. We all escape at about midnight. Apparently as these things go it was not too bad, there have been instances of negotiations going on until 3 in the morning in Luxembourg and then the Parliament people being shoved on a coach, driven to Brussels and dumped somewhere in the city centre in the early hours.
13.00 LDEPP. Again a relatively routine agenda. The big issue is Kashmir, but we will resolve that in Group.
14.00 The EP FSF are holding their first annual forum on solvency ll. I go along to the first part. I can not stay for all of it as I have other appointments.
16.00 I have a meeting with Credit Suisse about the detention in Romania of one of their employees who was responsible for some of the privatisations in Romania. They were also going to see Sarah but as I have also invited some Romanian colleagues we decide to have one big meeting in my office. The main problem is one of due process in that it could take 5 or 6 years for the case to get to court. Anyway, Sarah and I decide to write to Commissioner Frattini and ask for a meeting next week.
17.00 Group. We discuss the Kashmir report. We manage to get an amendment tabled that says the inability to meet conditions for a plebiscite now does not rule it out for the future. We also discuss the new format of Parliamentary timetable proposed for next year. There are more non Brussels weeks so as to allow for delegation visits but some of us are concerned this will cause our ‘constituency’ weeks to get filled up with travel instead of being able to do constituency work. The other weeks are all mixed up more. In theory it gives more committee time. I am a bit concerned that it leaves very little time for working on reports etc.
19.00 Back to the office. I definitely have to do the conciliation. Diana is optimistic it will not take too long, others less so. It seems to me that all the times that have been submitted in the sweepstake on how long it will last are over optimistic.
20.00 We are all downstairs on level 5 where two committee rooms are being used for the Conciliation. The Council are in one room in ‘trilogue’ discussions with Diana Wallis (Rapporteur for the Parliament on Rome ll) and the Commission. The Parliament conciliation committee has another room, we also have some Commission people with us. Diana come to us and explains where we have got to and asks for a negotiating mandate within a range of options that she thinks the parliament could accept. Some advice/assistance on support for some wording is also sought from Commissioner Frattini who is in with us.
20.40 Diana heads back to do battle with the Council. The rest of us are invited to hang around. An impressive array of sandwiches, fruit and drinks is laid on which is replenished constantly. Some people go back to their offices waiting to be rung when it is time to reconvene (which could be at any time and several times), I intend to do that but actually find quite a few people I want to talk to are their from both the Parliament and Commission so end up having useful discussions instead.
23.05 Diana has emerged from the Council so we now reconvene in our room and discuss the latest state of affairs. We really are down to haggling over a few words and messengers are sent from one room to another and back. Eventually all is agreed and we take a vote. Then we go and join the Council in their room and formally agree that we have agreed. We all escape at about midnight. Apparently as these things go it was not too bad, there have been instances of negotiations going on until 3 in the morning in Luxembourg and then the Parliament people being shoved on a coach, driven to Brussels and dumped somewhere in the city centre in the early hours.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
