- The European Parliament is such a waste of money – or is it? | rationaldebate on Pay and Expenses statement
- stephen downs on Rebecca Taylor MEP: Medicinal regulation avoided but fight for ecigs not over yet
- Gazza on Rebecca Taylor MEP: Medicinal regulation avoided but fight for ecigs not over yet
- AdamN on Rebecca Taylor MEP: Medicinal regulation avoided but fight for ecigs not over yet
- Fergus Mason on Rebecca Taylor MEP: Medicinal regulation avoided but fight for ecigs not over yet
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- January 2012
Category Archives: Blog
Today I abstained on the final Tobacco Products Directive vote. My position on this Directive has always been clear: I wanted strong tobacco control measures and sensible regulation of e-cigarettes. I was therefore not willing to vote against the Directive …
Outdated, outmoded and increasingly inaccurate: is it time follow our European neighbours and say goodbye to "Miss"?
It has long been unfair that women can be identified by their marital status through the use of “Miss” or “Mrs” whereas men cannot via “Mr”. “Ms” was introduced as an alternative for both married and unmarried women, although is not universally used or liked.
Many journalists struggle when a married woman doesn’t take her husband’s surname, as seen in numerous articles referring to Nick Clegg’s wife Miriam González Durántez as “Mrs Clegg” despite that not being her name. Wikipedia even says “Miriam Clegg, known professionally by…..” !!?? Why is it so complicated to understand that Miriam was given a surname at birth (actually two as per Spanish custom) that she will use for her whole life? That’s what men do….
I have also noticed newspapers calling married women who have kept their own name “Miss”. When the tabloids revealed then Labour Home Secretary Jacqui Smith’s husband’s expense claims, many rather oddly referred to a woman they knew was married, as “Miss Smith” !!?? It’s as if they think a woman who keeps her own name isn’t properly married or something (dinosaur alert!).
Anyone would think that not taking your husband’s surname on marriage was something new, unusual and shocking. It isn’t new at all, although it was when my Mum did it some forty (!) years ago in 1972. Like other women of her generation, my Mum kept her name because she didn’t like the historical significance of taking your husband’s surname, namely that you became his property.
It is not unusual for women to keep their own name these days; currently 50% of married women do, while 50% opt to take their husband’s name. There is also a trend, albeit somewhat middle class, for women to add their husband’s name to their own and sometimes give that double barrelled name to their kids too.
The fact that people marry later and the vast majority of women work, surely has an impact; changing surname in your 30s involves not only bureaucracy (replacing driving licence, passport, credit cards etc), but also several years of explaining your name change in a professional context. I have seen linkedin profiles along the lines of “Jane Smith (nee Brown)” that stay like that for years.
There is then the associated bureaucracy of changing your name back to your “maiden” name, should you be unfortunate enough to get divorced and not want to keep your ex-husband’s name. I also know a handful of women who still have the name of their first husband although they have since divorced and re-married. Divorce also raises another question: should a divorced woman stop being called Mrs and revert to Miss even if she still has her husband’s name or only if she changes her name back?
A friend who did not change her name when she married was very annoyed to receive a cheque payable to a person who doesn’t exist (my friend’s first name with her husband’s surname). She had to take her marriage certificate to the bank (!) to pay it in as obviously neither her bank account nor any ID she possesses, is in the name of her husband.
So what do other European countries do? Well in Belgium, where I used to live, an adult woman is officially “Madame” (in French) or “Mevrouw” (in Dutch) and almost always in conversation too; I recall being called “Mademoiselle” only very occasionally when in my early 20s. In Germany “Frau” is now used for all adult women, the German version of Miss (“Fraulein”) seemingly consigned to history or used only for little girls.
In the European Parliament, I am referred to as Madame/Frau/Mevrouw etc and this is even extended to English, where “Mrs” is used in written and spoken communications. At first I found being called Mrs when I am not married, a bit odd, but I soon got used to it.
Another aspect of using “Miss” is that it applies to cohabiting women with children who have not married their partners, which seems rather inaccurate i.e. it no longer necessarily identifies a single (childless?) woman. A friend who is the deputy head of a primary school is in theory still “Miss”, despite living with her partner for more than 15 years and having two children.
A cohabiting friend with children wondered (in the days when marital status was commonly on CVs) whether putting “single” was misleading. That particular problem is now solved by the fact that marital status is no longer included on a CV. In Belgium civil status (“état civil” in French) was removed from ID cards some 10 years ago, which greatly pleased a divorced friend who hated the fact that her ID card said “divorced” rather than reverting to “single”.
So I wonder if it is time to get rid of “Miss” given that as well as being outdated and outmoded, its use is increasingly inaccurate? The obvious route would be to follow what Belgium does, so all adult women would become “Mrs”. However, I wonder if some married women, who rather like using Mrs to show that they are married, might object to this? Comments welcome!
I am hearing about blanket bans on people using e-cigarettes on public transport and in some public places like bars and pubs e.g. Wetherspoons, etc. I have even seen a notice banning the use of e-cigs in a comedy club where you can eat and drink whil…
Negotiations between the European Parliament and national governments (“trialogues”) on the tobacco products directive have begun and several meetings have already taken place. There is a strong desire to try and reach agreement on the tobacco directive during the Lithuanian Presidency, which runs until the end of the year.
National governments are represented by the Lithuanian Presidency and the EP negotiating team is led by the rapporteur Labour MEP Linda McAvan, along with the shadow rapporteurs from the other political groups. The Liberal group is represented by Belgian Liberal MEP Frédérique Ries, co-author along with myself and Chris Davies of amendment 170 on e-cigarettes.
After the first trialogue meeting which addressed the issue of e-cigarettes, Frédérique tweeted the following:
“#trilogue #ecig: ça va mal, la Présidence lituanienne ne veut rien entendre, RIEN. Pas un geste, aucune volonté! Je bataille contre un mur”
(translation: “It’s going badly for e-cigs in trialogue, the Lithuanian Presidency doesn’t want to listen at all. Not a gesture, no willingness whatsoever! I am fighting against a brick wall”)
However, along with Frédérique, the centre right (EPP) and Conservative (ECR) shadow rapporteurs, German MEP Karl Heinz Florenz and UK Tory MEP Martin Callanan made it clear that e-cigarettes were a red line for their respective groups. If those three groups (ALDE, EPP and ECR) vote along the same lines, they form a majority in the European Parliament and once an agreement is reached on the tobacco directive, it will have to be approved by the Parliament (a simple yes/no vote).
An agreement on the tobacco directive which is not fully supported by three political groups which constitute a majority of MEPs is unwise, and therein lies the hope for sensible regulation of e-cigarettes.
Since the July 2013 position of national governments on the tobacco directive, which included an agreement to support medicines regulation for e-cigarettes, the ground has shifted significantly. Not only did the European Parliament clearly vote against medicines regulation, but action at national level has drawn this matter to public and political attention. In addition, there have apparently been complaints to the Lithuanians that they are going too quickly on e-cigs without allowing national governments the chance to consider other options.
The key country right now is France, which is believed to no longer be supportive of the medicines route for e-cigarettes (and was reluctantly supportive previously), although no official change of position has been announced. In France, 100 leading doctors recently sent a letter to the French government asking them to act on this issue and push for sensible regulation. It is thought that if France changes its position on e-cigs, this may lead other countries to do the same.
The irony of a Socialist government in France opposing medicines regulation of e-cigs, contrary to the position of the Socialist group in the European Parliament, while a Conservative/Lib Dem coalition government in the UK supports medicines regulation against its own MEPs, is not lost on me!
What is needed right now from a UK perspective is to get increasing numbers of Westminster MPs to question the government/MHRA position. Some Liberal Democrat colleagues of mine at Westminster including Norman Lamb MP, the social care minister, Dan Rogerson MP and Lorely Burt MP have been doing this as has Conservative MP Sarah Woolleston, who is a GP.
Along with Chris Davies, I will carry on trying to win over LibDem colleagues at Westminster, but this effort needs to be extended to Conservative and Labour MPs too. I would therefore repeat my previous call for concerned individuals to contact their MP to raise this issue (see previous blog: http://rebeccataylormep.blogspot.be/2013/10/e-cigarettes-and-tobacco-directive.html).
It would also be worth noting when you contact MPs that the MHRA is still (as of last week; Jeremy Mean spoke at the e-cigarettes summit in London http://e-cigarette-summit.com/) unable to give more than very vague answers to specific questions about how e-cigarettes could be regulated as medicines. This does not fill me with confidence…..
The battle for sensible regulation of e-cigs is not yet over and can still be won!
I am pleased to have played a role, along with my colleagues Chris Davies, Lib Dem MEP for the North West of England, and Belgian Liberal MEP Frédérique Ries in getting amendment 170 on e-cigarettes adopted by the European Parliament (EP) in the plenary vote on the tobacco products directive (TPD).
The week before last, the EPP (centre right group) made a request to delay the vote on the tobacco products directive (TPD) until 8 October (it was scheduled for the September plenary session). This request was supported by the ALDE (Liberal) group and…
Following an agreement among the leaders of the European Parliament’s political groups last week, the final EP vote on the Tobacco Products Directive (TPD) has now been pushed back to the 8th of October 2013. Although the vote was not delayed because o…
Brian Harry Taylor, long serving stalwart of Bromley and Chislehurst Liberal Democrats, died peacefully in the Freeman hospital, Newcastle on Monday 12 August aged 93.
Born in Putney, London in 1919, Brian’s political sentiments were first aroused against the Brownshirts and their targeting of Jewish immigrants in the East End of London in the 1930s. He joined the Bermondsey branch of the Communist Party in 1937, but was always more of an anti-fascist than a communist. He left the Communist Party in 1939 in disgust at the Hitler-Stalin pact.
As a student dentist at Guys Hospital in 1943, he met future wife Susan (née Goldschmidt), a student nurse. He then served in the British Army in the Middle East and married Susan in May 1946 after being demobbed.
In 1955 Brian saw the light and along with Susan joined the Liberal Party; both soon became dedicated party activists in their corner of South East London. Brian first stood for election to Bromley Council in 1956, was first elected in 1957 (allegedly the first Liberal Councillor in Kent), lost his seat in 1960, then regained it in 1962. During this period he was Health Committee Chair, elected by fellow councillors who thought a dentist well qualified for the role. He failed to get elected to the new London borough of Bromley Council in 1964, but was returned via a by-election in 1968. In the 1979 general election, Brian was the Liberal parliamentary candidate for the seat of Chislehurst (now Bromley and Chislehurst).
With their 12 year old son Michael pressed into service (helping “disappear” Tory stake boards into the boot of the family car), Brian and Susan worked their socks off to get a young man named Eric Lubbock elected to Parliament in the 1962 Orpington by-election. Over the years, Brian and Susan helped out with many by-elections including Sutton and Cheame in 1972, Bermondsey in 1983, Littleborough and Saddleworth in 1995 and of course Bromley and Chislehurst in 2006.
In their trusty caravan, Brian and Susan toured the country attending by-elections, Liberal party conferences, and helping the Liberal endeavours of son Michael in West Yorkshire, and daughter Wendy in Newcastle.
In 2007, when Brian and Susan received a long service award from the party, Liberal Democrat President Simon Hughes MP said that not only had they dedicated over 50 years to Liberal causes, but they had also created a Liberal Democrat dynasty with both children and grandchildren becoming party activists.
Brian never let advancing age stop his Liberal Democrat activism; when no longer able to deliver and canvass, he stuffed envelopes and sorted leaflets. He was also a dedicated federal conference participant, most recently at the 2013 Spring conference in Brighton.
Brian is survived by his wife Susan, three children, five grandchildren and one great-grandchild.
From left to right: Susan Taylor, Rebecca Taylor, Brian Taylor
By Rebecca Taylor, Liberal Democrat Member of the European Parliament
and Petros Fassoulas, Chairman of the European Movement UK
This blog post was first published on www.euromove.blogactiv.eu
UKIP MEPs are infamous for being not just Britain’s laziest members of the European Parliament, but among the laziest in Europe, as figures from VoteWatch and EP Committee minutes have shown (and the Mirror graphically exposed recently).
UKIP MEPs’ excuse for their lack of graft is that their job is to get the UK out of the EU and they don’t need to bother with anything else, like actually representing their constituents’ interests in Brussels.
Of course if they were politicians of principle, they could refuse to take their seats after elected. But then they would forfeit their MEP salary and allowances, which they don’t seem keen to do. In fact UKIP are on record as boasting about how much money their MEPs claim, for not doing their jobs properly. This not being enough, two UKIP MEPs were jailed for expense fraud and benefit fraud and last year two further UKIP MEPs were forced to repay nearly £40k to the European Parliament after being found to have used allowances improperly.
In addition, UKIP MEPs are far less transparent than MEPs from other UK parties, who publish their expenses on their websites and regularly update them (Rebecca Taylor’s can be found here).
Mr Farage was caught out by the BBC’s Andrew Neil, when he was asked why he and his deputy Mr Nuttall had not published their expenses for 2 years despite promising to do so. Mr Farage was unable to produce a convincing response, saying instead that he was “very busy” and that he had “lost some receipts”.
But what does Nigel Farage does while he is in Brussels, paid by British tax payers? Does he stand up for British interests? Does he work on legislation that will improve the life of his constituents? No, of course not, he spends his time not attending committee and not bothering to vote even when issues are important for the UK. European Liberal group leader Guy Verhofstadt famously accused Nigel Farageof being the EU’s biggest waste of money. He has a point. Mr Farage has failed to attend 48% of Plenary votes, has never drafted a report and he is joint bottom when it comes to Parliamentary questions asked.
As the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) is important for the fishing industry in the South East of England, the region Mr Farage represents, he has tried to make it look like he was doing something by “campaigning”, which seemed to consist of sending out angry press releases. However, he has never bothered to take part in Fisheries Committee meetings and when mammoth cross-party efforts by centre-right, Socialist, Liberal and Green MEPs ensured an historic reform of the CFP, which will end overfishing and safeguard the future of the fishing industry in Europe, Mr Farage was nowhere to be found. He did not even bother to show up to the final fisheries committee final vote (which was very close) and he disappeared halfway through the plenary vote.
In fact, according to Committee minutes, he attended just one of 42 Fisheries Committee meetings between February 2010 and January 2013, when he resigned from all Committees. In fact UKIP MEPs have attended just 30% of Committee meetings.
Which is a real shame and huge waste. The real graft in Brussels is done in committee, so by skipping committee meetings UKIP miss the chance to exert any influence and help shape laws that affect their constituents. They claim that there is no point as they would be outvoted every time, which is patently ridiculous when key votes can (and often do) go one way or another with only a vote to spare.
Committee work requires an MEP to understand the proposal in question, meet with businesses, NGOs, pressure groups, ordinary citizens, trade unions, national government representatives etc. to hear their positions, develop amendments that will not only be workable, but will also get sufficient support from their political group as well as other MEPs, and keep track of the hundreds, sometimes thousands of other amendments. Doing all this properly is hard work and very time consuming, so no wonder UKIP MEPs prefer to prance round the UK making speeches to their followers and sending out angry press releases instead. Much easier!
UKIP’s deputy leader Paul Nuttall MEP is a point in case. He is a Member of the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee, but in nearly three years had attended only twice. According to figures by VoteWatch he is 736th (out of 753 MEPs) when it comes to Plenary sessions attended. He is joint bottom both for reports and opinions drafted (actually he hasn’t drafted a single one!).
This is again “out of principle”; he thinks his time would be better used elsewhere. Or he does until he realises he might get some bad publicity as happened recently.
The Environment, Public Health and Food Safety Committee recently debated and voted on the EU tobacco directive, which included the regulation of e-cigarettes. Like-minded MEPs from several parties worked to table sensible amendments on e-cigarettes and it all came to head in the Committee vote.
Knowing that the key amendment on e-cigarettes required all the votes it could get and that Mr Nuttall never attends committee, e-cigarettes users (some of whom were Mr Nuttall’s constituents) were encouraged to contact his office. Some were ignored, some received the same generic e-mail response they had received several months previously, and at least one was told Mr Nuttall would not attend the tobacco directive vote.
They were dismayed and began complaining about him on Twitter. Then all of a sudden Mr Nuttall changed his mind and showed up at the Committee meeting (his 3rd visit in 3 years!), although he didn’t bother to vote on many amendments.
This experience was a great opportunity for many voters to realise that while UKIP shout loudly, they do very little else. Many of them expressed surprise; UKIP like to portray themselves as standing up for “ordinary British people”; what they actually do is ignore the very people they claim to represent.
Needless to say, Mr Nuttall’s constituents were left unimpressed, but at least they were able to compare the efforts to shape EU laws made by hard working LibDem MEPs (among others) with the blink and you’ll miss it work done by UKIP MEPs.
Mr Nuttall’s attitude shows that UKIP MEPs are indeed lazy, but only when they think they can get away with it. They claim to be avoiding the hard graft of parliamentary committee work out of principle, but those principles are soon chucked by the wayside if they suspect they will get any bad publicity.
Put under a little scrutiny, especially by UK voters who are vocal, active on social media and in regular contact with broadcast media, and suddenly UKIP MEPs decide that attending EP Committees is not such a waste of time after all.
Time for a lot more scrutiny of UKIP!
Hundreds of trainees working for organisations across Brussels descended on the sunny Place du Luxembourg last week to stage what has been dubbed the ‘Sandwich Protest’ – a demonstration to raise awareness of the poor working conditions and unfair remu…