Bruges Group - where were the other two?

Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer were supposed to be sharing a platform with UKIP leader Nigel Farage and the Telegraph's Simon Heffer at the Bruges Group debate 'Will a Conservative Government deliver on Europe?'

However, due to 'heavy pressure' explained Barry Legg, the two Tory MEPs were not in a position to attend. As Trixy hears it, both MEPs, who sit with the non attached in the European Parliament because they did not tow the line of the Europhile group they sit with, received letters from CCHQ telling them they were not allowed to share a platform with Nigel Farage MEP. Ever.

Readers may be aware of the Sun lunchtime event, Fixing Broken Britain where Tory Shadow Minister Michael Gove MP shared a platform with Cherie Blair in Manchester. And in Birmingham, Shadow Chancellor George Osborne is sharing a platform with Hazel Blears and Charlie the Safety Elephant. That is allowed, of course, because they're all happy clappy social democrats together. (My uncle tells me that Gove has promised a retrospective referendum if they get into power - I pointed out that this may have been a porkie given that Cameron has ruled it out)

Which may go some way towards answering the question that SuperDizzy TM has:

Why is it that I have an MEP yet there is no conference to tell me what the party has been doing in the EU? As my representative on matters which impact my life I have to sod off to various fringe events to hope against hope that one will give an indication of what is coming down the line.

Would it not make more sense to have an extra day at the beginning added to conference that is dedicated to the European Party representative rather than the National one? After all, things the MEPs do tomorrow are things that MPs will have to deal with in the EU the next week (shortened time lines is artistic license).

So let's start having a day of conference that is dedicated to the MEPs and an update of what they are doing. After all, in some cases, they actually exercise more power than the Prime Minister.

Because CCHQ and Tory MEPs in particular including, I think, the MEP Dizzy tells me came up with the idea, have no desire to let you know exactly what they vote on and actually how in favour of the EU they are. It would rather burst their eurosceptic bubble if people knew that Tory MEPs sit on committees and draft legislation wafting over power to the EU which they then tell tabloid paper journalists is 'appalling' 'disgraceful' and the such.

The fact is, that the Tory Party take delight in gang banging the EU social model along with all the other Pro EU parties in this country and MEPs who wish to speak up for what they believe in are forbidden from doing so by the party heirarchy who are terrified of either another split or voters actually finding out how deceitful they are.

The former top Tory MEP has, by the way, been 'cleared' by the European Parliament for breaking the rules.. Oh yes, there's no doubt he broke them according to the twat who likes to close down blogs Harald Romer. But presumably because he's an important MEP who chairs a parliament committee, he's allowed to. According to the delightfully dishy Bruno Waterfield

A letter has been sent from Harald Rømer, the powerful euro-fonctionnaire who runs the Parliament's administration, to the former Conservative leader here in Brussels. In it, Mr Rømer apologises to Mr Chichester (er, wasn't he the one who had broken the rules?) for "the delay in bringing this matter to a positive conclusion".

"I can inform you that I have come to the conclusion that although your contract with that company constituted a potential case of conflict of interest, you have had no personal financial benefit from that contract, and that no conflict of interest has ever materialised," writes Mr Rømer (my emphasis).

"It is clear that all the allowances received have indeed been used to pay the salaries and fees of your employees and related overhead expenses."

"In view of the above, I am content that there was no personal gain arising out of a conflict of interest in breach of the relevant rules and that the use of the money received from your parliamentary assistance allowance has been fully justified by the extensive documentation that you have presented." (my emphasis).

Or is it that the European Parliament just like to keep all MEPs happy and tell them all that nothing is going to happen to them?
I say that because Giles Chichester has been cleared by the same people who also cleared Tom Wise MEP of any 'wrong doing' and who has since been arrested, following OLAF's decision to report him to the relevant UK authorities for the same reasons he was invetsigated by the European Parliament.

Given that Giles Chichester, Den Dover and John Purvis> all broke the rules and for much larger sums of money than Tom Fool, are they too to be investigated by OLAF? When it comes to fraud I care not for parties, I just want fairness and justice.