Annunziata Rees-Mogg’s latest complaint about EU parliament backfires terribly
- Credit: BBC
Annunziata Rees-Mogg has complained that she doesn't have time to think about her votes in EU parliament, prompting more experienced MEPs - and a lot of Twitter users - to suggest she does her homework before showing up.
Before today's EP votes, various people had warned me what it would be like. I assumed they exaggerated. They didn't. Seconds to vote on subjects from Hong Kong to Venezuela. What a system, no time to breathe, let alone think, between each issue. https://t.co/VrsSGx5TW1— Annunziata Rees-Mogg (@zatzi) July 18, 2019
"Before today's EP votes, various people had warned me what it would be like," she tweeted. "I assumed they exaggerated. They didn't. Seconds to vote on subjects from Hong Kong to Venezuela. What a system, no time to breathe, let alone think, between each issue."
In the same session Rees-Mogg referred to, Liberal Democrat MEP Martin Horwood had asked the chair in the rapid-fire voting session to "slow down a touch for us newbies", but added that it was "still a lot more efficient than Westminster", he said in a tweet.
But it was the Brexit Party MEPs who tried to turn the practical request into a broader point about the democratic process.
It also helps if you spend your staffing budget on expert advisors to guide you through the process— Molly Scott Cato MEP (@MollyMEP) July 19, 2019
But Brexit Party don't like experts and their staff spend all their time generating and spreading #BrexitLies
Lance Forman tweeted: "I've heard of speed reading and speed dating, but not speed voting. Sometimes they want the vote on a paper ballot, other times it's a show of hands and mostly their super-duper voting machines. What a joke. The EU Parliament is a sham - a figleaf for democracy."
You may also want to watch:
Martin Daubney boasted: "The whole thing was over in the bat of an eyelid, within 15 minutes, 320 euros." He lampooned Horwood - though strangely not Rees-Mogg - for the request to slow down.
Green Party MEP Molly Scott-Cato responded to Rees-Mogg, saying that the reason the voting is so rapid is that "in European Parliament all amendments are taken rather than secret committees of whips stitching things up, there isn't time to take a leisurely stroll through the lobby".
If only there were some schedule you could look at, to enable you to prepare beforehand— badly drawn bee (@soapachu) July 19, 2019
"It also helps if you spend your staffing budget on expert advisors to guide you through the process," added the more seasoned MEP helpfully. "But Brexit Party don't like experts and their staff spend all their time generating and spreading Brexit lies."
Green MEP Catherine Rowett said: "Some of us attended the debates and also reflected in our groups on whether to accept the various amendments. I wonder whether you have had advice from experts on which resolutions were acceptable? I noticed you were not there during the debate on the urgencies."
Hundreds of Twitter users came back with similar sentiments.
One Twitter user put it more succinctly: "Have you heard of preparation?"
That'll be because competent MEPs actually do research and reading into the things being voted for, and know what it is they're doing... unlike you BXP scammers who are just there for yourselves.— Orionvor (@orionvor) July 19, 2019
Another said: "You know all that free time that you've spent complaining about iPads? Everyone else was reading the policy papers so that they were informed when the voting took place."
You know all that free time that you've spent complaining about iPads? Everyone else was reading the policy papers so that they were informed when the voting took place. #DoBetter— Scribbler Griff (@Maxmycat) July 19, 2019
Become a Supporter
The New European is proud of its journalism and we hope you are proud of it too. We believe our voice is important - both in representing the pro-EU perspective and also to help rebalance the right wing extremes of much of the UK national press. If you value what we are doing, you can help us by making a contribution to the cost of our journalism.