I wouldn’t mind having a European vote this year

As the joke goes, if you know who your local MEP is, you are that MEP. In Britain, we have never taken the elections to the European Parliament seriously. They have been little more than a chance for voters to let off steam by, for example, voting Ukip.

Things are different on the Continent, however, and so we are in danger of not understanding what is going on. The next Euro-elections are in May. It seems as if, for the first time ever, the status quo faces a challenge. Until now, the vast majority of MEPS has colluded in wanting “more Europe”. The parliament has gained greater powers to enforce this. Under the “Spitzenkandidat” system which now chooses the president of the European Commission, the parliament bands together to prevent an open contest and make sure that the next head is in the “right” mould.

Now, however, there is a real chance that insurgent “populist” parties could do well in the European elections, making the parliament plural in its European views as never before. Unrestricted immigration will almost certainly become harder. Someone might even be bold enough to call for “less Europe” in some areas.

This helps explain why France is in such a rage with Italy’s populist coalition just now. Its histrionic gesture of withdrawing its ambassador from Rome, for the first time since June 1940, should be seen as an electoral move.

It also helps to explain why the EU powers want Brexit settled soon. They do not want British MEPS helping to lower the Euro-maniac proportions in the next European Parliament. To my amazement, I almost feel sorry I shan’t have a chance to vote in the next European election.

 When the photograph showed Jean-claude Juncker and the Irish prime minister, Leo Varadkar, smirking over a congratulatory card from a County Clare woman that Mr Juncker had received, the British reaction was too muted.

It was not offensive for the writer, Hailey Kierse, to say “For the first time ever, Ireland is stronger than Britain”, though it might well be untrue. But the card, signed, oddly, in the name of the sender’s dogs, also said: “Britain does not care about peace in Northern Ireland.”

Roughly 3,500 people, not dogs, were killed in the Troubles since 1969. Of these, probably more than 90 per cent were British citizens, and 32 per cent of the total came from the British security forces.

So far as I know, no one from Mr Juncker’s native Luxembourg was murdered. The suggestion that the British, of all people, would wish to risk peace in Ulster is ignorantly rude. The suggestion that a Eurocrat from Luxembourg could ensure it is comical.

 Matt, the cartoonist, needs no introduction to Telegraph readers. Last week, however, I did introduce him. He had kindly agreed to address the annual general meeting of the Rectory Society, which I founded. We are a fan club for British clergy houses of all descriptions.

Rectories have long been associated with artistic talent, so it is no accident, I feel, that Matt and his family chose to live in one, in East Anglia. In his charming speech, Matt related the only time in his career that his work has faced complete rejection.

The newsletter of the parish in which his old rectory stands asked him to draw their Valentine’s Day cover. He reckoned that Cupid had to come into it, plus a rural theme. He therefore drew Cupid firing his arrow at a man in wellington boots standing with his shotgun, about to shoot pheasants.

Having had no reply after sending in the cover, Matt eventually plucked up courage to ask about its fate. It was unsuitable, he was told, because Valentine’s Day is on February 14 and the pheasant-shooting season ends on February 1. The scene depicted was therefore impossible, the newsletter’s editor explained.

This is a perfect tale of village life. Before Matt had finished his story, I guessed correctly what the editor’s objection would be. I ruefully realised I must be a country pedant myself.  On Friday, the veteran MP, Sir Christopher Chope, used the device of shouting “object” to prevent a Bill about female genital mutilation (FGM) going through without debate. He has previously done the same to the Bill against “upskirting”, one about flood defences, and others.

Because of his objection to the FGM Bill, he was condemned by no fewer than three Cabinet ministers – Sajid Javid, Matt Hancock and Liz Truss. Shame on them, and their virtue-signalling as they position themselves for a possible leadership contest. They know perfectly well that Sir Christopher is not trying to defend FGM. He is trying to prevent legislation by gesture. He was not trying to block the Bill, but to make sure that it did not go through on the nod.

If something is to become the law of this country it needs to be properly debated by our lawmakers. If this principle is ignored, bad law almost always results.

It is one of the worst aspects of our EU membership that Commons scrutiny is denied to thousands of pieces of EU law. Parliament can complain about them, but it can neither amend nor reject.

Long may Sir Christopher go on shouting “object” loudly and often. Where there’s parliamentary life, there’s Chope.