How the Euro-gravy train hit the buffers
'It looks as though I'm getting out at the right time," a retiring MEP told me, a touch smugly. You can see his point. Until now, no one has paid much attention to Euro-MPs or their expenses. For 30 years, secure behind a broad moat of public indifference, MEPs have been able to award themselves allowances that their national counterparts could only dream of. Suddenly, though, people are very interested indeed - because the aftershocks of the row about MPs' expenses at Westminster are shaking the European Parliament. Paradoxically, the tremor has hit at the very moment when MEPs, after years of immobilism, are trying to put their affairs in order. Giles Chichester, the Tory leader who resigned this week over a breach of the rules, had just pushed through a new code of conduct for his own MEPs that would make such breaches impossible. Meanwhile, last month, the parliament voted to make it illegal to employ first-degree relatives. No longer will it be possible to pay a handsome salary to the missus whether or not she is doing any work. ("What is it about you English?" a French colleague remarked. "You employ your wives and sleep with your staff.") Euro-MPs have also voted to end the "kilometrage" scam, whereby they were reimbursed on the basis of a first-class fare, plus a little extra, regardless of how they made the journey. Those who actually flew first-class could make a tidy sum. Those who used Ryanair or Easyjet could trouser the better part of £1,000 a week - tax free, since it counted as expenses rather than income. Year after year, I and a group of Scandinavian MEPs put down an amendment calling for reimbursement at cost; and, year after year, we lost. Then, to our astonishment, the parliament agreed to the change. Judging from their expressions when the result was flashed up, some of those who had voted with us were even more astonished. In an elaborate piece of game theory, they had wanted to vote for reform, but lose. When the numbers were declared, they realised to their horror that everyone else had made the same calculation. Still, at least the change was made. At the same time, most British MEPs have adopted a voluntary system providing for an independent audit of their "general expenses": the £3,000-odd a month which is intended for petrol, postage and the like, but which is paid over unconditionally. You may be wondering why it has taken until now to reform such an indefensible system. The answer is that no one much cared. At the height of the Derek Conway affair, it emerged that several MEPs had also been improperly channelling public money to family members. But whereas in the Commons the system worked - Mr Conway was condemned by the relevant committee and disowned by his party - MEPs voted to bury the report about their own abuses. Despite this, commentators reacted furiously to every detail about what MPs could spend on their televisions, while largely ignoring the Euro-sleaze entirely. Fair enough. But ask yourself why Eurocrats should be crooks. Is it because the EU attracts corrupt people? Or is it not likelier that the system itself tends to corrupt - to normalise venal behaviour. "I have behaved in complete accordance with the rules of the European Parliament," say MEPs, perfectly truly, when justifying behaviour that, before their election, they would have regarded as scandalous. After a while, when you see everyone around you engaging in some technically legal scam, it stops seeming like a scam. You forget that the money is public. You start talking about "your" allowances. Once you do that, you find it much harder to condemn the bigger fiddles: the squillions squandered in agriculture, foreign aid and regional development. You become part of the system. You dismiss all critics as rabble-rousers. In the end, you come to despise your own electorate. European integration may have started as an idealistic - or at least ideological - project. Now, though, it is chiefly a handy way to make a living. Voters have clocked the European Union for what it is: a racket, whose main purpose is to look after its own. Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for South-East England http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/07/do0703.xml
'It looks as though I'm getting out at the right time," a retiring MEP told me, a touch smugly. You can see his point. Until now, no one has paid much attention to Euro-MPs or their expenses. For 30 years, secure behind a broad moat of public indifference, MEPs have been able to award themselves allowances that their national counterparts could only dream of. Suddenly, though, people are very interested indeed - because the aftershocks of the row about MPs' expenses at Westminster are shaking the European Parliament. Paradoxically, the tremor has hit at the very moment when MEPs, after years of immobilism, are trying to put their affairs in order. Giles Chichester, the Tory leader who resigned this week over a breach of the rules, had just pushed through a new code of conduct for his own MEPs that would make such breaches impossible. Meanwhile, last month, the parliament voted to make it illegal to employ first-degree relatives. No longer will it be possible to pay a handsome salary to the missus whether or not she is doing any work. ("What is it about you English?" a French colleague remarked. "You employ your wives and sleep with your staff.") Euro-MPs have also voted to end the "kilometrage" scam, whereby they were reimbursed on the basis of a first-class fare, plus a little extra, regardless of how they made the journey. Those who actually flew first-class could make a tidy sum. Those who used Ryanair or Easyjet could trouser the better part of £1,000 a week - tax free, since it counted as expenses rather than income. Year after year, I and a group of Scandinavian MEPs put down an amendment calling for reimbursement at cost; and, year after year, we lost. Then, to our astonishment, the parliament agreed to the change. Judging from their expressions when the result was flashed up, some of those who had voted with us were even more astonished. In an elaborate piece of game theory, they had wanted to vote for reform, but lose. When the numbers were declared, they realised to their horror that everyone else had made the same calculation. Still, at least the change was made. At the same time, most British MEPs have adopted a voluntary system providing for an independent audit of their "general expenses": the £3,000-odd a month which is intended for petrol, postage and the like, but which is paid over unconditionally. You may be wondering why it has taken until now to reform such an indefensible system. The answer is that no one much cared. At the height of the Derek Conway affair, it emerged that several MEPs had also been improperly channelling public money to family members. But whereas in the Commons the system worked - Mr Conway was condemned by the relevant committee and disowned by his party - MEPs voted to bury the report about their own abuses. Despite this, commentators reacted furiously to every detail about what MPs could spend on their televisions, while largely ignoring the Euro-sleaze entirely. Fair enough. But ask yourself why Eurocrats should be crooks. Is it because the EU attracts corrupt people? Or is it not likelier that the system itself tends to corrupt - to normalise venal behaviour. "I have behaved in complete accordance with the rules of the European Parliament," say MEPs, perfectly truly, when justifying behaviour that, before their election, they would have regarded as scandalous. After a while, when you see everyone around you engaging in some technically legal scam, it stops seeming like a scam. You forget that the money is public. You start talking about "your" allowances. Once you do that, you find it much harder to condemn the bigger fiddles: the squillions squandered in agriculture, foreign aid and regional development. You become part of the system. You dismiss all critics as rabble-rousers. In the end, you come to despise your own electorate. European integration may have started as an idealistic - or at least ideological - project. Now, though, it is chiefly a handy way to make a living. Voters have clocked the European Union for what it is: a racket, whose main purpose is to look after its own. Daniel Hannan is a Conservative MEP for South-East England http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/06/07/do0703.xml