Farage in Bother with the EU (again!)

[L00b 441]

9 hours ago, retep said:

Were you there?

Were you?

 

Unless you were and you can prove it and you can prove the request in confidentiality-holding was made before the letter was circulated...

 

...what was the point of your quoting these rules of procedure at me, again? 

 

You were talking of smarts. Smarts isn't so much finding rules of procedure, as understanding them and then applying them in the context of a situation.

 

Case in point: all those Leave politicians exhibiting spectacular levels of idiocy,  finding WTO and GATT24 rules just fine, but (very very clearly) not understanding them, and so interpreting them completely wrongly.

 

Nigel Führage is one of those. Or he's lying. Take your pick.

Edited June 28, 2019 by L00b

[retep 68]

3 minutes ago, L00b said:

Were you?

 

Unless you were and you can prove it and you can prove the request in confidentiality-holding was made before the letter was circulated...

 

...what was the point of your quoting these rules of procedure at me, again? 

No and that is the criteria, neither were you, so what was your point in mentioning rule 2.

[L00b 441]

23 minutes ago, retep said:

No and that is the criteria, neither were you, so what was your point in mentioning rule 2.

Do I need to remind you of your own words?

Quote

Mr Farage has hit back at the committee, and accused its MEPs of also breaking Parliament rules after the letter was leaked to the media.

 

A spokesman for the Brexit Party leader also suggested their boss was being targeted for political reasons.

The spokesman said: “It is our view that if you make mention of this you will be in contempt of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament which confirm that the proceedings of the Advisory Committee are confidential.

“We find it amazing that you should be in possession of this letter before Mr Farage’s office in Brussels has received any such information. This demonstrates that Channel 4 are co-operating with an individual who clearly dislikes Nigel Farage but nevertheless sits on a Committee which purports to make judgements about him and who by leaking this letter seeks to bounce the President into making a decision before he has seen any evidence. “This is unacceptable and a breach of protocols surrounding the operation of this Committee.”

 

Did you not quote rule 210A, as some justification that Farage was correct in the above, after I made the point in reply (see post #13), that proceedings were certainly confidential, but that did not mean that documents and evidence used in the proceedings were confidential?

 

The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament do confirm that proceedings of the Advisory Committee are confidential.

 

But they do not confirm that documents and evidence relied upon in those confidential proceedings, are confidential themselves, except for those marked 'EU Confidential' (equivalent to UK 'eyes only'), or unless a Advisory Committee member has requested them to be held in confidence and the Advisory Committee has agreed (what paragraph 2 of Rule 210A is about).

 

That was exactly my point in post #13, R210A simply confirms it.

Edited June 28, 2019 by L00b

[retep 68]

17 minutes ago, L00b said:

Do I need to remind you of your own words?

Did you not quote rule 210A, as some justification that Farage was correct in the above, after I made the point in reply (see post #13), that proceedings were certainly confidential, but that did not mean that documents and evidence used in the proceedings were confidential?

 

The Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament do confirm that proceedings of the Advisory Committee are confidential.

 

But they do not confirm that documents and evidence relied upon in those confidential proceedings, are confidential themselves, except for those marked 'EU Confidential' (equivalent to UK 'eyes only'), or unless a Advisory Committee member has requested them to be held in confidence and the Advisory Committee has agreed (what paragraph 2 of Rule 210A is about).

 

That was exactly my point in post #13, R210A simply confirms it.

Which neither you nor I, know the outcome of, but looking at the words of the spokesman for Farage they may.

[L00b 441]

1 hour ago, retep said:

Which neither you nor I, know the outcome of, but looking at the words of the spokesman for Farage they may.

Indeed, so again, why did you quote that rule in reply to my post #13?

 

Unless you already knew that the AC member request was made, doing that was pointless.

[retep 68]

3 hours ago, L00b said:

Indeed, so again, why did you quote that rule in reply to my post #13?

 

Unless you already knew that the AC member request was made, doing that was pointless.

There is no mention of evidence in the post I gave #16 just you making it up.

[Magilla 510]

17 minutes ago, retep said:

There is no mention of evidence in the post I gave #16 just you making it up.

Your post #16 was in regard to L00bs “confidentiality of evidence” statement.... unless you're now claiming you've no idea what you're discussing... you're just making it up

 

Edited June 28, 2019 by Magilla

[Top Cats Hat 10]

The problem with trying to defend Farage is that he has already admitted to not declaring the money and gifts that he received from Aaron Banks.

[retep 68]

1 hour ago, Magilla said:

Your post #16 was in regard to L00bs “confidentiality of evidence” statement.... unless you're now claiming you've no idea what you're discussing... you're just making it up

 

There is no mention of evidence in the post, stop making it up.

50 minutes ago, Top Cats Hat said:

The problem with trying to defend Farage is that he has already admitted to not declaring the money and gifts that he received from Aaron Banks.

Of course he has, he also gave a reason, he didn't expect to still be fighting for the UK, blame May for that and remoaners such as yourself.

[Magilla 510]

22 minutes ago, retep said:

There is no mention of evidence in the post, stop making it up.

LOL, the evidence was the point you were responding to in post #16! 

 

Otherwise, what was the point of posting the rules?

 

Quote

Of course he has, he also gave a reason, he didn't expect to still be fighting for the UK, blame May for that and remoaners such as yourself.

The time to make any funding declaration was when the party was formed, after the supposed "reason" for having not previously done so had long past.

 

Farages excuse is laughable nonsense... classic that you've fallen for it though... no surprise there!

 

Everyone elses fault as usual.... no surprise there!

 

It's clear there is no real excuse, Farage is as guilty as could be.... no surprise there!

Edited June 28, 2019 by Magilla

[L00b 441]

2 hours ago, retep said:

There is no mention of evidence in the post I gave #16 just you making it up.

Wasn't there?

Quote

Rule 210a : Procedure for the consultation by a committee of

confidential information in a committee meeting in camera

1.   When Parliament is under a legal obligation to treat information received as confidential information, the Chair of the committee responsible shall automatically apply the confidential procedure laid down in paragraph 3.

2.   Without prejudice to paragraph 1, in the absence of any legal obligation to treat the information received as confidential information, any committee may apply the confidential procedure laid down in paragraph 3 on its own motion to an item of information or a document indicated by one of its members in a written or oral request. A majority of two-thirds of the members present shall be required for the adoption of a decision to apply the confidential procedure in such a case.

3.   Once the Chair of the committee has declared that the confidential procedure is to be applied, the meeting shall be in camera and may be attended only by members of the committee, including substitute members. The committee may decide, in compliance with the applicable inter-institutional legal framework, that other Members may attend the meeting pursuant to Rule 206(3). The meeting may also be attended by those persons who have been designated in advance by the Chair, as having a need-to-know, in due respect of any restrictions stemming from the applicable rules governing the treatment of confidential information by Parliament. As regards the consultation of classified information at the level of CONFIDENTIEL UE/EU CONFIDENTIAL and above, or in case of specific limitations of access stemming from the interinstitutional legal framework, additional restrictions may apply.

The documents shall be distributed at the beginning of the meeting and collected again at the end. They shall be numbered. No notes and no photocopies may be taken.

The minutes of the meeting shall make no mention of the discussion of the item dealt with under the confidential procedure. Only the relevant decision, if any, may be recorded.

4.   Without prejudice to the applicable rules on breach of confidentiality in general, Members or a political group or groups reaching at least the medium threshold in the committee which has applied the confidential procedure may request consideration of a breach of confidentiality. This request may be placed on the agenda of the next committee meeting. By a majority of its members, the committee may decide to submit the matter to the President for further consideration under Rules 11 and 166.

This Rule applies to the extent that the applicable legal framework relating to the treatment of confidential information provides for the possibility of consulting the confidential information at a meeting in camera outside the secure facilities.

So. Are you having some reading comprehension issues with your own material? Or is it something else?

Edited June 28, 2019 by L00b

[Top Cats Hat 10]

1 hour ago, retep said:

Of course he has, he also gave a reason, 

So let’s get this right.

 

You oppose corruption and the gravy train in the EU but not if it’s Farage? (and UKIP and the BNP before that)