Can we measure our MEPs' patriotism?
When it comes to patriotic voting in the EU, do you have to be in it to win it?
This was suggestion of Lib Dem MEP Edward Macmillan-Scott, who hit out of at the voting record of the UK Independence Party yesterday.
Mr Macmillan-Scott, who defected from the Conservatives earlier this year, argued that the record of UKIP leader Nigel Farage in Brussels was half as patriotic as his own.
He told the BBC’s Daily Politics programme: “My patriotic record of voting for the country is twice as good as Nigel’s.”
So what exactly did he mean?
His comments are based on data compiled by academics at the London School of Economics, and helpfully arranged on the VoteWatch.eu site.
One of the ways the voting records are analysed is the extent to which each MEP voted with the majority of the other members from their country.
Here, it can be seen that Mr Macmillan-Scott voted with his compatriots 74.05 per cent of the time, compared to Mr Farage’s 37.64 per cent.
However voting with other parties from a country is different from voting for the country, so it seems a somewhat misplaced measure of parliamentary patriotism.
Unsurprisingly, it is not a definition of patriotism that is shared by UKIP.
“We think votewatch.eu is excellent,” a spokesman said. “But the idea that you can judge patriotism by voting with the European consensus of the three major parties is plainly bonkers.”
Mr Macmillan-Scott’s office were, however, quick to defend his interpretation of the data, and argued that his superior record of “voting for the country” was evidenced in a much higher attendance rate at the EU Parliament – 89.09 per cent against 70.91 per cent.
A spokesperson said : “They're supposed to be these great British patriots and want to deliver us from the evil excesses of Europe ... but you've actually got to turn up and vote things down.
“If UKIP decided to vote with the EPP or centre right parties they could defeat an awful lot of this legislation that's being imposed up on us, that's what Edward was saying.”
Perhaps it could have been made clearer in the interview…
Our work depends on your donations. Click donate to make a one-off donation.
Full Fact believes in the possibility of accurate, informed, enlightening political debate.
We work with politicians, journalists, experts and the public to stop inaccurate claims being made and spread; to make sure reliable information is available and mistakes are corrected, not vilified.