7th September 2010: Andrew Brons had been hoping to make this one minute speech in the European Parliament this morning, but unfortunately he wasn't called.
"There are honest (that is brazen) totalitarians who ban political dissent without trying to hide the fact and there are plenty of those in the E.U.
Then there are the dishonest totalitarians, who pretend to respect democratic rights but clamp down on contrary opinion by using innocent-sounding institutions of the state.
"This morning, the misleadingly-named Commission for Equality and Human Rights in the United Kingdom will attempt to gaol our Party Chairman, a member of this Parliament and two of his colleagues for contempt of court, because our Chairman committed the heinous offence of allowing people to join a perfectly legal political party.
The action was started a year ago, ostensibly to protect the rights of people to join a Party that they had no intention of joining. It was like seeking to assert the right of vegetarians to enter butchers' shops or teetotallers to enter bars and alehouses.
The real purpose was to starve our Party of cash during the General Election campaign and then to bankrupt it by a vexatious and dishonest use of the civil law.
I accuse the present regime in the UK, like its predecessor, of being an enemy of democracy and of freedom of association."
6th July 2010: This afternoon Andrew Brons made an unsuccessful attempt to address the Plenary Session under the 'Catch the Eye' procedure to a debate on the Spanish Presidency.
This is what the British National Party MEP for Yorkshire and North East Lincolnshire would have said given the opportunity.
"The Spanish Presidency* began with an acknowledgement of an enormous act of deceit that had been practised on the peoples of Europe. Mr. Lopez Garrido was taunted, in an AFCO committee meeting by a committee member that he (Mr. Lopez) had said that the Constitutional Treaty was stillborn, when in fact it was alive and kicking, in the form of the Lisbon Treaty. Mr. Lopez Garrido agreed that he had been wrong and that the Constitutional Treaty was indeed alive and kicking in the form of the Lisbon Treaty.
The pretence that the two documents were different was to avoid further referendums that would inevitably have been lost. An organisation that relies on pretence and misinformation has no claim to moral authority.
The particular issue that has challenged the EU during the period of the Spanish Presidency has been the economic crisis.
The Europe 2020 document, drawn up by the Commission, admits that growth has been negative and unemployment has soared.
The economic problems facing the EU are not temporary but systemic. They result from the refusal of the EU and its member states to protect the jobs and markets of Europe from the threat of Globalism. The only way, in a global market, in which European countries could compete with emerging economies, would be for our wage rates to fall to their levels."
* The Spanish Presidency refers to the Spanish Government's six month period of presiding over the Council (formerly Council of Ministers), which comprises a representative of each member state - usually the foreign minister. Spain's Presidency has just come to an end and will be succeeded by the Belgian Presidency. The Council is not to be confused with the European Council, comprising heads of government, which is presided over by President Herman van Rompuy!
6th July 2010: This morning Andrew Brons spoke in the European Parliament under the 'Catch the Eye' procedure to a debate on the new draft agreement between the United States and the European Union that will facilitate the transfer of financial data, ostensibly to combat terrorism.
"The so-called safeguard in the new draft agreement is an element of European Union control (Europol) over the extraction in the United States of transferred bulk data. Even if this control were to be exercised in good faith, I do not believe that the individuals (exercising the control) would have the confidence to refuse requests for extraction of data, from the United States, if it were to be said, quite untruthfully, to combat terrorism.
"However, United States foreign policy is much wider than opposition to terrorism and it is quite probable that the U.S. would seek to gain access to financial data that would be used against its wider political opponents and not just to real terrorists.
"My opposition to this Treaty is not limited to its content. The responsibility for treaties affecting sensitive, confidential information belongs properly to sovereign nation states and not to supra-national bodies like the European Union."
16th June 2010: This was a speech delivered by Andrew Brons to the parliament in Strasbourg on the preparations for the European Council Meeting that is to take place tomorrow.
*The European Council - not to be confused with the Commission - comprises heads of government and (in the case of France) one head of state. It is presided over by the President of the European Council Hermann van Rompuy. It is expected to launch a new European strategy for growth and jobs.
"The Agenda talks of a new strategy for jobs and growth, by which they mean loss of jobs and negative growth. GDP fell by 4% in 2009 and 10% of the workforce - 23 million people - are unemployed. What will be the European Council's remedy? More immigration! Look at the European Pact on Asylum and Immigration, which features on the agenda.
"If you believe that our problems will pass with the current crisis, think again. As they admit, competition from emerging economies is intensifying. What will be the European Council's strategy to deal with this? More globalisation. Open the doors to more goods from the emerging Third World economies. Export jobs by off-shore employment.
"The countries of Europe can compete with goods, services and employees of the Third World and emerging economies only if our wage rates fall to their level. Do not think that our innovation in capital and techniques will save us. Our innovations of today will belong to the world the day after tomorrow. Globalisation spells poverty for the nations of Europe."
14th June 2010: This was a speech by Andrew Brons in the European Parliament in Strasbourg on Estonia's adoption of the Euro.
"Many think that congratulations should be given to Estonia. I offer the Estonian people my commiserations.
"The value of a country's currency must reflect the relative demand for its exported and imported goods and services and other monetary movements and must change according to need.
"A country tied to a currency value that does not reflect the needs of its economy will find that any economic problems are aggravated. The United Kingdom found this, when we were members of the predecessor of the Euro - the Exchange Rate Mechanism. We found ourselves locked, not only into a single currency value but also into a recession, from which we escaped only when we left the E.R.M.
"The Scicluna Report congratulates Estonia on replacing current and capital account deficits, with current and capital account surpluses. This appears to be good news but there are dangers on the horizon.
"This surplus might result in the Commission and the European Central Bank setting the Kroon to Euro rate at too high a level. If Estonia then suffered a decline in the value of its exports relative to imports, a recession and balance of payments deficit would follow, from which it would not be able to escape.
"Estonia will lose its monetary and fiscal sovereignty and therefore political sovereignty, which is ironic for a country that only nineteen years escaped from the clutches of the Soviet Union."
14th June 2010: This was a brief but pointed contribution made by Andrew Brons under the Catch the Eye procedure to the debate on the Right to Interpretation and Translation in Criminal Proceedings.
"It is self evidently right that people facing criminal proceedings should have interpretation and translation services - especially since the European Arrest Warrant that allows people to be extradited for acts that are not offences in their own country.
"However, this is one of the unspoken costs of mass migration - one that was not admitted to when the process started."
19th May 2010: This was the third of four contributions made by Andrew Brons during the day in the European Parliament in Strasbourg. This time he spoke during the debate on European Economic Governance.
The British National Party MEP for Yorkshire and North East Lincolnshire said:
"The economic crisis is not a temporary illness from which EU members will soon recover and return to full economic health. There are systemic flaws in the approach to economic policy of the European Union and its member states.
"The goal of a single currency eventually for twenty-seven plus countries is based on the false assumption that one currency can be appropriate for many quite different economies. The value of a currency must reflect the state of health of the economy it serves.
"However, there are other distinct problems. The embrace of globalisation by the European Union and its member states is a recipe for disaster.
"We cannot allow goods and workers from low wage countries to flood into Europe. We cannot compete with their goods without reducing our wage rates to their levels. Legal minimum wage levels will not prevent our workers being undercut covertly by migrant workers, the outsourcing of the work of our peoples or the moving of our manufacturing to the Third World."
18th May 2010: Andrew Brons made this two minute speech in the Plenary during a debate on whether the European Union should sign up to the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights Session.
"The European Union signing up to the Council of Europe's Convention on Human Rights will be followed by legislation that will make the Convention part of European Union law, as well as being another organisation's document that will operate as an external benchmark.
That means that the EU's Court in Luxembourg will have the jurisdiction to interpret and enforce two potentially competing documents: the EU's Charter and the Council of Europe's Convention.
I have asked several 'experts' in AFCO and in LIBE what would happen if there should be a conflict between the two documents or between different sections of the same document. Which document or which section would take precedence. I was told that the document or the section that granted the greater amount of freedom would take precedence over the one that granted the lesser amount of freedom.
I later asked what would be decided if there should be two parties to a dispute and each claimed different but competing and possibly contradictory rights e.g. the right to practise one's religion without being offended and the right of freedom of expression involving criticism of the tenets or followers of a religion. This is not entirely theoretical as the case of the Danish cartoons illustrated.
This was the case of the dog that didn't bark or rather the expert who did not venture an opinion. The silence was as deafening as it was clear for all to hear and to understand. Free speech will always be sacrificed because that is the EU's default position. Denying free speech is what the European Union does best.
We are here talking about two different categories of right: the political right of freedom of expression against prosecution by the state; and the right not to be offended by criticism. The right not to be slightly offended is considered to be much more important than the right to debate a matter of public interest.
Should there be no restrictions on freedom of speech? Yes there should be a restriction on those who incite violence. However, criticism that falls short of that threshold should be free from interference from the criminal law.
17th May 2010: This was a one minute speech made by Andrew Brons in Strasbourg on Rule 24.
"It is central to the operation of the Rule of Law that institutions are subject to their own laws.
"Rule 24 paragraph 2 of the Rules of Procedure states quite clearly that, "the non-attached members shall delegate one of their number to attend meetings of the Conference of Presidents."
It does not say that the delegate shall be chosen by vote but by what other method are joint decisions to be taken - by telepathic signals?
"The administration for the non-attached has said that the delegate should be chosen by consensus. However, it has not attempted to define how consensus might be established and has not attempted to arrange for a delegate to be chosen by this method. When attempts have been made to choose the delegate by election these attempts have been declared to be invalid.
"What has been the response of the Parliament to all of this? Well there are now steps being taken to change the rules so that the so-called delegate can be chosen by the President of the Parliament rather than the delegators.
"How long before the President of the Parliament exercises our right to vote in the Plenary session?"
The speech would have been ended with the following paragraph but the one minute had been used before Andrew could deliver it.
"Democracy is indivisible. Destroy it in one part of an institution and you will find that it has been weakened everywhere."