Député Dodds – a voice for Euro fascists?

The DUP are very proud of MEP Diane Dodds becoming a member of the European Parliament’s Conference of Presidents. The body while sounding very important is essentially a business committee come speakers’ office and is mainly concerned with timetabling parliamentary business.

What the DUP did not point out is; Dodds is not a full member of this body. Indeed she has only been appointed on a 6 month term and has no voting rights. All other members are there as a result of being a leader of a European Parliament political group and have proportional voting rights based on the number of MEPs they represent.

Dodds sits as a non-alligned member of the European Parliament and is a member of the non-attached (technical) group that comprises 27 other MEPs also unsuitable to join a political group or unable to find numbers to form one. This group have been clamouring for some time to be represented in the Conference of Presidents. Because the majority of them are fascists the CoP didn’t want to let them propose their own person and decided to allow the President of the EP to appoint one of the non-attached members to the CoP. Dodds being one of the least objectionable non-attached members (which says a lot about them), she was considered to be relatively safe and so was appointed by President Buzek for a six-month period as observer (she has no vote on any issue).

I’m not entirely sure what happens after six-months. Probably another relatively non-objectionable member will get the nod for another six months. But there’s very few relatively non-objectionable MEPs who are non-attached so maybe Dodds could end up in the chair for longer.

The problem that arises for Dodds is both the Conference of Presidents and non alligned MEPs will have a not unreasonable expectation that she is solely there to represent their interests (they being some of the most extreme and right wing views in Europe) – it certainly isn’t an appointment to represent herself, the DUP or the north of Ireland. Indeed she is in a room full of people only there to represent group interests.

How Dodds can represent this group comprising people mainly ranging from the far-right to the extreme-right (or barely disguised fascism) will be intriguing. She refused to sit beside Nick Griffin at the Parliament’s opening, now she has accepted a role ensuring his interests are upheld.

, , , , , , ,

  • lamhdearg

    Mark how old are you you are starting to sound/read like a grumpy old man, and as for this “Dodds being one of the least objectionable non-attached members (which says a lot about them)”, nasty, what do you find so objectionable about DD is it that she is not a dissy, it surely can’t be that she would not shake Bairbres hand as as a dissy you must have liked that.

  • I was going to comment – but changed my mind.

  • Mark McGregor


    It was the CoP that decided Dodds should represent the interests of fascists in the European Parliament – sorry if pointing that out looks ‘grumpy’ to you.

  • lamhdearg

    i wish i had your sence belfastjj

  • Mark McGregor

    And I’ll pointlessly remind you of our ‘ball not man’ rule.

    There is a topic addressed in quite a lot of detail here – you’ll not note. Me, ‘dissys’ (whatever the feck that is meant to mean) or ‘Bairbre’ have nothing to do with it.

    But sure motor away with your BS – typical Slugger comment these days.

  • Mark McGregor

    I’ll repeat it for you and the other troll –

    And I’ll pointlessly remind you of our ‘ball not man’ rule.

    There is a topic addressed in quite a lot of detail here – you’ll not note. Me, ‘dissys’ (whatever the feck that is meant to mean) or ‘Bairbre’ have nothing to do with it.

    But sure motor away with your BS – typical Slugger comment these days.

  • aquifer

    Dodds is off the end of some scale or other. But I would just tend to leave her there. Maybe I am not vexatious enough for political activism. And too old to imagine that a pistol could give me a monopoly of truth. It is hard to take para politicals seriously when young males whine so incessantly when they lose their pistols. And even if they get the pistol back, it only advertises a personal shortfall.

    Sighs and goes off to bed.

  • Munsterview

    While I may not be any great fan of the British Army I do recognize the bravery and courage of the thousands from the Six Counties protestant community that fought Fascist to prevent this political ethos becoming the defining political philosophy for Europe.

    Only this to the DUP is appropriate, the words of CPt. Mick Fitzerald to an Irish international Rugby team, ….. ” Where is yer fucking pride ” ?

    She is also a disgrace to the thousands of WW1 heros from this island who’s remains lie in the soil of France, two young officer distant cousins of my own among them. Then again I can think of a few of her colleagues on the Assembly benches that would not be out of place in the company of those other European Fascist either.

  • Another quango. More money for old rope.. How do we let these people away with it

  • Alias

    Mark has invented his own private definition of ‘fascist.’ Under his definition, the BNP are a party of the political right, when even a cursory glance at their policies will reveal that they are actually a party of the Loony Left.

    It’s true, however, that most of the current non-inscrit MEPs are on the far-right and some of them would loosely fit the actual definition of a fascist, but the actual fascist position here would be to claim that those who have been democratically elected should be excluded from ‘power-sharing’ (even of the non-voting variety) in the EP, being considered lesser MEPs than those who hold ‘acceptable’ political views.

    Since the non-inscrits hold contrasting views, Ms Dodds cannot be expected to present views that conflict with other, and not have she been elected by the non-inscrits, so her position cannot be fairly portrayed as an endorsement on the extreme left wing views of the BNP or of extreme right-wing views.

  • Alias

    Typo: “….and nor have she been elected by the non-inscrits…”

  • CM

    I’m not really sure how this reflects very badly on Dodds. If she had actively sought to represent the far right then that would be a very different matter, but if she was simply chosen for being nonaligned it doesn’t seem that she bears much responsibility for this role.

    I’m sure she could have turned the position down, but I doubt you get very far at the European Parliament by turning things down. Occam’s Razor says it’s more likely she took the job for a bit of DUP prestige than to usher in a fourth reich (and will most likely act accordingly- sounds like nobody really wants her to represent her constituents here).

    You say yourself that she was probably chosen because she was the most palatable of the bunch. Very likely, and whilst being more reasonable than a load of Fascists is by no means a compliment, nor is it a scandal.

    Anyway, don’t the far right at the European Parliament have a grouping of their own? Are there too few or what?

    Lastly: I didn’t know about her refusing to sit beside Griffin. I’m sure she was just avoiding embarrassing pictures, but still, good for her.

  • lamhdearg

    DISSY – Disassembly, the topic of the post seems to be how unimportant the committee is and how unimportant DD poss is in it AND THEN CONTRE how it is a big horrible travesty that she has taken up the possion, as the ball is nonexistent its hard to play.

  • lamhdearg

    my key board is not workuing i am of

  • Mick Fealty

    It was a very good spot by Mark, but the swastika kind of invokes old Godwin’s law.

  • Alan Maskey

    You are probably being a trifle unfair to Ms Doods. Surely Mr Griffin’s interests have to be represented by/channelled through someone. Given that Rev Ian Paisley used to boast at how well he treated his RC constituents, perhaps Ms Dodds can do the very little that is required in that regard.
    If these are fascist parties, then which one is the British fascist party? The UKIP (who campaigned with PSF in Ireland for a No vote in the Referendum) or the BNP, who have some very quirky views (eg Ireland should rejoin the Commonwealth) and who seem to have an Irish connection in that they are in a messey internecine feud.
    Fascism implies a strong leader: Hitler, Franco, Paisley, Jack Charlton, Salazar, Mussolini, who can be objects of great fun and ridicule to their political opponents. Where are their strong leaders?
    Our dear Orange friends will say they are not fascists because their Sash wearing ancestors fought fascists in 1940. But so did Nick Griffin’s da.

    Also, how fascist are these fascists? (Very Irish quesiton you will agree). One of the problems with fascism is its opaquenes and lack of accountability. (Hello PSF). Le Pen has, by all acounts, ripped off loads of his followers.
    The Romanians, Flemish etc have a big nationalist rather than following.

    Finally, there is not a natural fascist constituency. Le Pen’s votes come from very right wing ( itself a French Revolutionary concept) Royalists and displaced white French workers, who formerly voted Communist. Not all that different from some Irish parties.

    And who amongst us is immune from this virus. Many years ago, I was stopped by the good men of the RUC out doing their duty for Queen and country. They had the most fantastic looking RUC woman I have ever seen. She was a beautiful gun toting babe and, if used properly, would have turned anybody. Similarly, once in Dublin’s Soviet Embassy, I was greeted by a luscious Siberian vixen. I wodner how many Fianna Fail ministers/Sticks sold their souls to that honeypot.
    Bottom line: we are fickle creatures. And so are alliances in the anti democractic EU.

  • aquifer

    Fascists deliberately use violence within politics for political ends, fabricating ethnic national identifies and destroying dissident or different minorities. This comes too easy for many local groups, with our traditions of religious and cultural conflict, ethnic oppression, pogrom, and armed insurrectionism. The Nazis did it at the national indusctrial and multinational scale with considerable success until they overexpanded, but it is still worth closing down any local franchises.

  • Insignia


    A rather pathetic hissy fit if you don’t mind me saying. Sour grapes good man.

    Anyone with any real knowledge of how the non-attached group works will know that it doesn’t actually work as a group because of the political differences amongst members. It isn’t funded as a group for example.

    That Dodds has been appointed probably comes down to being one of a number of members who would be ‘acceptable’, but maybe also (shock horror Mark) that she has made a reasonable impact since landing in Brussels compared to the other acceptable members of the non-attached MEPs.

    Brussels is all about getting into positions of influence at whatever level and Dodds has done well to nab this one.

  • So Scottish MEP, George Lyon, is a fascist too, Mark. Well, he must be if he’s consorting with Diane Dodds. I always new there was something iffy about the Lib Dems 🙂

  • Alan Maskey

    Nice DUP website and Ms Doods looks nice. But should they not highlight their PSF partners on their website? Surely this would make them more acceptable, more house traine

  • Firstly, if Mark’s understanding of what Diane’s role will be is correct, this *is* a good spot (i.e. The DUP are bragging that Diane is being honoured by being conferred a position that is not particularly attractive and in that role, Diane may have a duty to be a spokesperson for a motley bunch that includes bona fide fascists – a role that she won’t carry out comfortably because she is not a fascist).

    Secondly, there’s something iffy about this constant reaching for comparisons between mainstream NI positions (either Republican or from within the DUP) and Fascism. Fascism is a complex beast that goes well beyond an occasionally violent version of nationalism or patriotism.

    Fascism has a great many essential features that are absent among NI’s main parties. Making these kind of comparisons is, almost by definition, trollery.

  • alley cat

    The nazi symbol simply proves yhis blogger
    Does not know the difference between a nazi and a
    Perhaps someone could tell him?

  • Insignia


    The key word in your post is ‘if’. ‘If’ Mark’s understanding of what Diane’s role will be is correct.

    Well it ain’t. As the non-attached do not function as a group, his argument falls at the first fence.

    Really those who start threads blinded by their own prejudice ought to take a deep breath and get their facts right before fingers kit keyboard. Only McGregor could see this as a bad thing for the level of representation Northern Ireland has in Brussels.

  • Alan Maskey

    Nazis either got strung up after the war or went to work for the Soviet or American war and espionage machines. The fascists went on to run Real Madrid, Italy , the Mafia and Formula One.
    Otto Skorzeny, one of Hitler’s most able sidekicks and described by Churchill as the most dangerous man in Europe, went on to run Odessa (the equivalent of PIRA’s Boys of the Old Brigade or the RBL) as well as a very sucessful Spanish construction company; he had a house near the Curragh, where the Free State officer corps unsuccessfully asked him to give them a few talks abut his amazing exploits. He told them to f-k off and he regulalry parked his (German) car outside the Gresham, where the Gardai used to fine him half a crown, which he considered good value for money. Fascists, in contrast, park either in Leinster House or Stormont, after first checkiing the car’s underside.
    Nazi chicks tend to be dour Nordics with skinhead boyfriends and awful tattoos. Fascist chicks tend to eat too much pasta and ovedo the makeup. The General, Martin Cahill, once Ireland’s top gangster, has a sister, who is a prominent Stormfronter. She doesn’t like reggae.

  • Clare Hall

    Alan Maskey: “The UKIP (who campaigned with PSF in Ireland for a No vote in the Referendum)…”

    A BS line seeing as you could have equally said:

    “The UKIP – who campaigned with PSF, the Communist Party, the Workers’ Party, éirigí, the SWP, and the Socialist Party – for a No vote in the Referendum”

  • slug

    I don’t know that her position is representing this group-as it is actually not a group ?

  • Mark McGregor

    I’ve removed the picture as it was a distraction.

    I stand over the content of the blog.

    The detail on the role of the Conference of Presidents is linked above. The selection proceedure and Dodds term etc was verified by contacts in the parliament.

    I would like to see a counter-argument to an expectation being that Dodds is on the body to represent the interests of the non-inscrits, this suggestion she is there to represent Northern Ireland is ludicrous and shows a fundamental unawarenesss of EP structures and remits.

  • Alan Maskey

    What is her/their policy on the expulsion of Romas from France? Why not invite them here? Though, would this being sucking up to the Vichys?

  • Insignia


    Nice attempt to sidestep. You fail to answer the key point, and why your entire post is nonsense. Are the non-attached members a ‘group’ in the same way as the EPP, ECR, ALDE etc? The answer is no. If you, or your ‘contacts’ in the European Parliament think it is, then maybe they should stop trying to cobble together speeches in pigeon Irish for Babs (cringe) and get their facts right.

    The point remains Mark , and no amount of your pathetic innuendo can get away from it, is that the non-attached members are not a group. How can someone represent and group if it doesn’t exist.

    BTW, i notice when you look at Babs page on the European parliament website, she sits smiling proudly beside the Union Flag. Nice.. Must mean she represents the best interests of the UK?

  • Mark McGregor


    I did not say they were a group. Though they operate as a ‘technical’ group with a sectretariat for administration prposes.

    Exactly the same as Dodds has been selected to represent the interests of this technical group – all non-incrits – on the Conference.

    She has not been selected to represent Diane Dodds, the DUP or the north or Ireland.

    Her appoinmtent is the outcome of fudging a long running campaign by the non-inscrit for representation.

    She is there solely to represent non-inscrit interests.

    If the argument is she is not going to do that, that she is going to solely represent Dodds and interests with no right to be represented in the Conference – fine. I guess the other 27 MEPs would have something to say if she stated that.

    Fact remains there is an expectation she will represent all non-inscrit interests on things such as speaking time. Thats what the position is about.

    Up to Dodds to clarify if she is going to use it for something else entirely. As it stands she has been selected by the President to represent the interests of all non-alligned MEPs including some of the most extreme views in Europe.

  • Mark McGregor

    To confirm that non-alligned members expect the appointment to represent their interests I’ll provide the contribution to the debate on changing the rules of Bruno Gollnisch of the French National Front:

    “Mr President, I have a very short point of order. Mr Martin’s report is intended to sort out problems concerning adaptation to the Treaty of Lisbon, but among the different amendments that we are required to vote on, there is one that is not related in any way to the Treaty of Lisbon and, as I see it, goes against the general principles of Parliamentary procedure. It is the amendment that deprives non-attached Members of the power to appoint their own representatives.

    Ladies and gentlemen, this is a very serious matter regardless of your political opinions. To hand responsibility over to the President of Parliament, however impartial he may be, for selecting a Member to represent the non-attached Members at the Conference of Presidents, based on goodness only knows what criteria, instead of to the non-attached Members themselves, I truly think goes against the general principles of law and against the case-law of the European Court of Justice.

    For this reason, Mr President, I consider that this amendment should be withdrawn from the list of amendments we are voting on today.”

    So the French far-right think the appointee is representing all non-inscrits.

  • Mark McGregor

    Further on expectations that the representative on the Conference of Presidents is there on behalf of all non-inscrits:

    Dodds herself in an old debate on issue

    And yet, in my first mandate as a democratically elected Member of the European Parliament, I find that I have been excluded from coordinators’ meetings, that I do not have a voice on the Conference of Presidents.

    And from explanations of vote on Rule change:

    Andreas Mölzer

    The present adaptation of the Rules of Procedure is necessitated partly by the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon. To this extent, it is a formal act. However, in the course of these amendments, the two large groups – the Group of the European People’s Party (Christian Democrats) and the Group of the Progressive Alliance of Socialists and Democrats in the European Parliament – are attempting to curtail the rights of Members who do not belong to one of the large groups. This is particularly wrong and unfair, since it would be lost in the mire of the debate on the major adaptations to the Treaty of Lisbon. For example, it is proposed that non-attached Members could no longer decide themselves who is to represent them, as is the case at present. This is a unique occurrence in democratic politics that is unacceptable. In any democratic parliament worthy of the name, a political group is allowed to decide its own representative on certain committees.

    However, here it is proposed that the President – who is a member of one of the two large political parties – should decide which of the non-attached Members should represent them at the Conference of Presidents. In other words, their political opponents will be able to choose a representative whose policy is nearest to their own. This is scandalous. In my opinion, the representative of the non-attached Members can only be chosen by a vote among the full assembly of non-attached Members. I therefore voted against the proposed amendment.

    Bruno Gollnisch (NI). – (FR)

    Mr President, this Parliament has a particular talent when it comes to reforms of the Rules of Procedure, which are always designed to diminish the rights of the minority, or underdogs, Untermenschen, that we are to some extent. For the past year, we have been riding roughshod over the rule that, under the terms of Rule 24 of the Rules of Procedure, allows non-attached Members to appoint their own representative.

    In a remark which was – I am sorry – one of the most stupid remarks that I have ever heard during my parliamentary career, you have just stated, Mr President, that this could not be done because you were not of the same political persuasion as me. It is true, I am non-attached as a matter of principle, whereas you were only non-attached because you were betrayed by your friends.

    However, at least there was one way, Mr President, of solving this dispute and that was by voting. A vote is the usual procedure in a democracy. But no, now the non-attached Members’ representatives will be chosen by the President of Parliament. This is yet another farce.
    It was indeed Mr Martin who concocted the idea and planned this, together with the representatives of the two main groups. Moreover, it reminds me of the previous amendments to the Rules of Procedure that Mr Corbett was behind, though he has now faded into obscurity and was fortunately defeated in the European Parliament elections by my friend, Nick Griffin.

    Philip Claeys (NI). – (NL)

    Mr President, Amendment 86 in the Martin report stipulates that the representative of the non-attached Members at the Conference of Presidents be decided not by the non-attached Members themselves but by the President of Parliament. The reason given is a lack of consensus among the non-attached Members. I ask myself what the problem is. Likewise, there is no consensus in this House itself when the President of Parliament is elected, which is precisely why we hold a democratic election. The representative of the non-attached Members must be representative and therefore, the best thing is to organise an election.
    The European Parliament is starting to show itself up somewhat as a kind of Mickey Mouse parliament where the President of the House himself decides who is representative of some of his opponents. I also wonder about the basis for this decision. Is it based on representativeness? Is it based on a personal liking for or friendship with a particular non-attached Member? What criteria will the President be using to decide on the representative of the non-attached Members? I should have liked the President to make a statement on this before the vote but, unfortunately, we were not entitled to hear one.

  • Mark McGregor

    As a final contribution on what is expected of the MEP representing the non-alligned members on the Conference of Presidents, I’ve tracked back the legislative trail on this to 2007:

    By comparison with the other groups, and irrespective of the number of Members involved, the degree of heterogeneity among the non-attached Members is very marked. Nevertheless, the differing views held by the non-attached Members could perfectly well be put forward in the Conference of Presidents by one representative.

    So the Parliament has a clear expectation the role Dodds has taken will involve representing the views of all non-attached members.

  • Mark McGregor

    So I’ll conclude:

    The initial intention of amending Rule 25 to allow a non-alligned MEP to attend the Conference of Presidents was to ensure these representatives had a voice on this body.

    As a result of the nature of the majority of non-alligned members of the Parliament the amended Rule ended up allowing the President and not the MEPs themselves to select the representative – to ensure a member of the far-right didn’t get to attend this body.

    However, the aim always was for an individual to represent the interests of this group of MEPs.

    Dodds was the chosen one.

    Now we have two options:

    1. She is going to represent the interests of all the non-alligned members as was intended when this process began

    2. She is not going to represent all their interests and is essentially party to disenfranchising them -admittedly few will lose any sleep.

    Either way – it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing to flag up as a great European achievement for Dodds and it still hasn’t got anything to do with giving ‘northern Ireland’ a voice on this body.

  • Reader

    Mark, in your 7:48 post, did you accidentally highlight the wrong section? This would have been a more honourable piece of emphasis: …the degree of heterogeneity among the non-attached Members is very marked.

  • Reader

    Mark McGregor: Either way – it doesn’t seem like the kind of thing to flag up
    What’s your position on lawyers representing people they believe to be murderers? And, on a related note, what’s your position on the desirability of disenfranchising anyone?

  • Mark McGregor


    The blog is very clearly about the Conference of Presidents and Diane Dodds – it is quite well referenced. My views have little/nothing to do with it.

    I have contacted Dodds for her view – I’ll post it up if she replies. Thats the relevant stuff.

    Until she clarifies, we seem to be left with the two options I suggest – both may be wrong. Up to her to set us straight at this stage.

  • Mark McGregor

    I have not said Dodds was expected to represent the politics of all the non-alligned members at the Conference of Presidents. As I noted at the start its function isn’t essentially political – it is mainly involved with things like timetabling debates and agreeing speaking time.

    I’ve shown there was an expectation by those drafting the rule change to permit a non-alligned member to attend and from numerous non-alligned members, that the representative (Dodds) would represent the interests of all non-alligned members to this body.

    The questions are – is Dodds going to do that, if so how, if not…well then another debate opens up.

  • Munsterview

    Soo…. have I this right…….she is not a fascist herself………she just represents each fascist voice there to the best of her ability and is required by term of her election to become their advocate ?

    And this is something the DUP considers a meritorious event to be trumpeted around the Six Counties and to the world ?

    WW 2 Six County soldiers fought in their thousands and how many died to stop Fascism in its tracks ?

    Now a representative of a party that would claim to be protecters of their legacy and all they fought for is giving a voice and representation to these same forces.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with political point scoring, it is a disgraceful insult to the memory of brave men and indeed women of the period!

  • Munsterview

    “…… Similarly, once in Dublin’s Soviet Embassy, I was greeted by a luscious Siberian vixen……”

    If factual….rather than the usual contributions to fatous fatwa…… could we be dealing with an old disgruntled Stick ?

    Would explain a few attidutes and obessions !

  • Alias

    Mark, the reason why the representative of the non-inscrits doesn’t have voting rights on the Conference of Presidents is simply because the representative does not represent a group with homogenous views and, ergo, cannot vote on behalf of a group whose views she does not represent. The representative of other groups, wherein there are homogenous views, have voting rights simply because, conversely, their representative can be said to be voting on behalf of those whose views are shared. Effectively, she presents the interests of the non-inscrits in the procedural matters determined by the Conference of Presidents rather than their heterogeneous political views.

  • Munsterview

    What red blooded man outside of the Six Counties in ‘ the mainland’ or in European politics, would not check out a Unionist female politician having read spicy accounts of certain events in the Statelet ?

    Can anyone reccomend a nice canal restaurant over there to George…..apparently it is a big turn on in some quarters from what I hear.

  • Mark McGregor

    Not quite.

    The expectation of the Parliament and non-alligned members seems to be that she represents their interests (not political positions) on procedural issues at the CoP.

    The DUP have presented this appointment as something quite different.

  • Mark McGregor


    “Effectively, she presents the interests of the non-inscrits in the procedural matters determined by the Conference of Presidents”

    Which is exactly the point I was making – despite the DUP statements on this, she is not representing the north of Ireland but is acting as a representative of all non-inscrits, the bulk of whom are far-right.

    She is representing the far right and a few others (in a non-voting capacity) on this body.

  • Mark McGregor

    The question is – will she really represent all these people as expected (by them and the parliament), or won’t she.

  • Insignia


    You seem too hasty to jump to conclusions as to what the statement says. Now take the tricolor blinkers off. If you look at the wording it says that Dodds will seek to use the relationship she now has with the parliament leaders to benefit NI. Could that not mean the ability to have a ‘word in the ear’ of these guys after a meeting, on something like the fisheries reform the statement refers to? Politics is all about wordplay. Ask tony blair!

    Interesting too to note your last post, where you admit her role is not to represent the political views of the non-alligned members. Your post title infers her to be a voice for euro fascists – highly misleading referencing to political views i would have thought – but glad to see the u-turn.

    Your desperate levels of research in trying to justify your post only indicates to me you know you made a mistake and actually posted this out of sour grapes in a mad hissy fit.

    Looking forward to your analysis of de Bruin and Nicholson’s influence in the near future. Or maybe we won’t get that as neither of them quite stir that level of bitterness in you as dupper dodds.

  • Mark McGregor


    I’ve actually covered the other MEPs – for example the first own initiaitive report (only report ever endorsed by the parliament from a northern MEP) supported by Unionism and drafted by the SF member.

    But you seem a little late to this party, so catch-up as you can.

    My previous blogs on speaking time, questions etc also seem to have passed you by.

    Though..this is about Dodds, no matter how hard you try to deflect.

  • Mark McGregor


    I think what you meant to say was:

    ‘I’m really pissed off the DUP have been caught out spinning this crap and if we now tell the truth about it Diane will lose the job and be subject to ridicule”

  • Munsterview

    In what way are fascist interests different from their political positions ?

    Logic would suggest that the former arise from the latter ?

    Being economical or flexible with fact and truth may me a requirement and indeed even a necessity for northern politics, look what that genuine, sincere man, Tony Blair was turned into by the time the Peace Process talks were over.

    Whatever of North Assembly politics, do we have to export this to Europe

  • I have to say that I’m not that impressed with Dodds as an MEP. A while ago I looked at the record of the 3 NI MEPs, and tried to give a neutral analysis. It is important to note that Dodds isn’t in a political group – but though there’s a lot of talk about her being “linked” with the fascists, I think it’s a bit unfair, since you’ve independents in all parties and to lump them all together isn’t that helpful.

    Still, looking at Dodds’ record as an “independent”, which should mean more questions and personal rather than party activity, I’m very disappointed. Maybe it’s changed since July (I’d be surprised, given the EP’s been in recess!), but the questions and parliamentary activity I found online seemed to be of very poor quality.

    The other 2 MEPs fair better – more party work, handling (some) rapporteur work. but they are part of small fringe parties, so you can’t expect big jobs or influence. MEPs in the other groups – the Social democratic group, liberals and greens (and centre-right EPP) have more influence and their MEPs get more important work.

    I wrote the short series because I wanted to show what the MEPs were doing, and show that the Europarties are important in the EP – we should probably pay more attention to them during the European elections. Also, the centre-left PES party’s (the second biggest one in the EP) activists are currently running a campaign to stage primaries for a candidate to run for the Commission Presidency (since the EP elects the post and the Council nominates the winning party’s nominee – this time was the EPP’s Barroso for re-election).

  • lamhdearg

    Barbie is the only one i would have on my team.

  • She’s done well, I think – her questions seemed to be the most specific and likely to get useful answers, and she is the only one of them to handle a rapporteur role in the first year of the Parliament. (Still early days, and it’s easier for MEPs from the big parties to get better jobs). The United Left is the smallest party in the EP, and is definitely far-left.

    Nicholson seems to have done well within the European Conservatives and Reformists – though it’s slightly smaller than the European Greens group. The ECR have generally been left out of the loop in the EP – in fact, despite the right winning the election, the left haven’t done too badly so far. It seems that the EPP (centre-right, biggest party) doesn’t see the ECR as a good or valuable ally (maybe the scars are too fresh?), whereas the left and liberal parties are ready to ally on the environment and civil liberties…

  • Insignia

    Sorry I missed those blogs, mind you if they are anything like that which was posted above I guess al i missed was ‘Babs good, Dodds evil.’

    You cannot hide the fact that this is simply all about Dodds bashing, and your fury she secured this post. Utterly pathetic.

    Answer me this one question – how can this post be a negative for Northern Ireland representation in the EP?