Promotion of the ‘Monster’ Martin Selmayr truly proves that the EU is run by gangsters
When our Brexit negotiators ask it to compromise — on trade, the Northern Ireland border or migration — we forget that the European Union and the 27 other member states simply cannot bend or break its inviolable rules — unless it suits them
THE EU is a benign bureaucratic organisation, we are told.
We silly old Brits misunderstand the legal foundations of the grand European project.
When our Brexit negotiators ask it to compromise — on trade, the Northern Ireland border or migration — we forget that the European Union and the 27 other member states simply cannot bend or break its inviolable rules.
This turns out to be hokum, as will be apparent to anyone who has read a report into Brussels chicanery published this week by the European ombudsman.
The EU elite, it is clear, break the rules whenever it suits them and with impunity.
Selmayr is known as the “monster of the Berlaymont” after the EU headquarters in Brussels where his word is law.
Earlier this year he was appointed, in shady circumstances, secretary-general of the commission, which he now effectively runs. The stitch-up reeked.
When MEPs found out, even the European parliament was appalled.
The improper manoeuvre will keep Selmayr, a devout federalist, at the centre of power for years to come and long after his patron Jean-Claude Juncker has retired to spend more time with his wine cellar.
How did they pull it off?
The outgoing secretary-general had told Juncker, privately, he would retire this year.
Armed with Juncker’s inside knowledge, Selmayr successfully applied to be deputy.
Then, at a meeting of commissioners, Juncker revealed the secretary-general post was suddenly vacant and that, as luck would have it, Selmayr was ready to fill it.
Selmayr did not take appropriate measures to avoid conflict of interest. The rules of procedure were broken.
“A situation of urgency to fill the post of secretary-general was created artificially,” O’Reilly says, and: “The commissioners (are) responsible for the maladministration in this case. It is extraordinary that no commissioner seemed to question the secretary-general appointment procedure, which in the end raised valid widespread concerns.”
Extraordinary is putting it mildly.
The report makes for shocking, if not surprising, reading. The rules-based Brussels order and its highly paid apparat behave like a gangster racket.
Just to be helpful, I’m going to send a copy of O’Reilly’s report to every EU flag-waving “People’s Vote” campaigner and to Gary Lineker, the crisp- toting TV football host, who has emerged as a leading voice in the campaign for a second referendum.
Needless to say, Selmayr and Juncker face no sanctions or punishment.
Instead, O’Reilly recommends that the commission should develop a new procedure — I’m sure that will help — for appointing the next secretary-general.
My first thought on reading her report was that the commission is an even more appalling and arrogant organisation than it looks, sitting at the heart of an imperious EU wedded to ever-closer integration.
Thank goodness we’re leaving. But are we?
To listen to the hysterical wailing of the People’s Vote crowd in recent weeks, you would think that Brexit is about to be stopped and a grateful public will beg to be bossed around by Selmayr and his goons for years to come.
There isn’t the parliamentary time for another referendum before we leave on March 29 and it’s an exceptionally duff idea regardless.
If there can be two referendums, why leave it at that? Why not make it best of three or five? The decision to leave has been taken. Britain is quitting the EU.
Thank goodness, in my view; a shame, in the view of others — what matters now are the terms.
Here, the Tory party is engaged in a row with itself over the Prime Minister’s Chequers proposal, which envisages Britain sticking with the EU’s rule book on goods.
It is astonishing to see how purist this has made some of my fellow-Brexiteers who spent years before the referendum acknowledging in private that there would have to be compromises.
Not long ago, Boris Johnson was so torn by the nuanced arguments on either side that he plumped for Leave by the narrowest of margins. Now he plays the zealot.
But contrary to the prophets of doom, the Chequers proposal isn’t dead yet.
No10 is adamant that it has “unlocked the talks” and that, beneath the rhetoric of the EU’s chief negotiator Michel Barnier, progress is being made that may become apparent at the Salzburg meeting of EU leaders on September 20.
In a weird way it might work. With Theresa May’s internal critics split and producing almost as many alternative Brexit plans as there are Tory MPs, Labour divided, and other EU member states anxious that we don’t leave without a deal, something like the Chequers plan remains the best one on offer.
It would satisfy non-obsessives like me to just agree a deal, improve it as we go along, and get on with life beyond Brexit. Life is full of compromises.
MOST READ IN OPINION
This is sacrilege to my purist friends. But soon, hardline Conservative MPs must decide whether they care so much about ideology that they are prepared to vote down an imperfect deal.
If they do that, they risk losing the lot.
And by opening the way to emergency extensions of our membership until we come up with another plan, they could condemn Britain to staying in the awful organisation that elevated Martin Selmayr to power.
Times/News Syndication