#627 – THE MAIDEN SPEAKS!

Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!

The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque & the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

THE MAIDEN SPEAKS – FIRST THE ONE & THEN THE DESK!!

Hi,

I started out watching Nikki Sinclaire’s ‘Maiden’ Speach in the EU:

It was unfortunate that Nikki seemed unsupported by her EUkip colleagues and was, interestingly, speaking as much for Italy, Finland, Greece, Holland etc. as she was for Britain – the fact that she spoke not as a British MEP but as an EFD MEP makes a complete nonsense of her speech.

When represented by the Dutch member of the EFD can we expect the views of Britain represented as an extreme and narrow christian sect? Do be minded that the entire vile concept of apartheid in South Africa was founded on and given credibility by the distorted and self serving interpretation of the bible by The Dutch Reform Church!

For the record as I could not find the text of Nikki’s speech on EUkip’s web site, so here it is:

Nicole Sinclaire (EFD ). – Mr President, I do not accept the validity of this Parliament or any other EU institution to make laws for the United Kingdom.

My electors have sent me here to tell you that they do not want GBP 45 million of their money every single day spent in the European Union. We want that money spent in the UK on our schools, on our hospitals and our infrastructure, not wasted on corruption with your accounts in auditing for 14 years.

Simply, I have this message from the people who elected me to the Commission: go back to your bureaucracy and prepare for the UK’s withdrawal from the corrupt and doomed mess that is the European Union.

A strange speech if you happen to be an Italian Lega Nord voter who, as an EFD MEWP Nikki represents!

This speech made on the 15-Sep-2009 she made is equally as anomalous:

Nicole Sinclaire (EFD ). – Mr President, President Barroso espouses a Europe of ambition. The EU has certainly achieved that: 27 states in 50 years, and the Lisbon Treaty – if ratified by Ireland – will mark the death of their national sovereignty and the launchpad for the European Union takeover.

But we in UKIP reject Mr Barroso’s plan for European integration because we know that individual Member States are not an irrelevance. National sovereignty is the bedrock of our values and the cornerstone of the United Kingdom’s democracy. In the EU, human rights – whether individual or collective – take second place to solidarity for Europeans. The two are directly incompatible, yet President Barroso puts them together at the centre of his vision of the EU for the next five years, with solidarity as the cornerstone for European society.

We in UKIP prefer sovereignty to solidarity. When Member States’ citizens express views in national referendums, the result should be final, respecting their rights to their opinions, but the EU’s version of citizens’ rights is to make them vote and vote again in national referendums until they can cave in to the pressure and vote ‘yes’.

This is how the Maastricht Treaty and the Nice Treaty were achieved, and now the EU is following the same tactic and forcing Ireland to vote again on the Lisbon Treaty when it has already rejected it, as did France and the Netherlands. What kind of rights are these, when they are rejected out of hand in the name of solidarity? UKIP places sovereignty and the citizen’s rights above solidarity. We reject the Lisbon Treaty and President Barroso’s vision of it.

I must say that having been a dedicated supporter of UKIP for many years and as most who read this blog will be aware I have tried over many years to try to make UKIP honest, transparent, democratic, focused and electable as was shown in detail in the official history of UKIP written before the anodyne and airbrushed subsequent version that was written not for fact nor for style but as an act of ‘omage by a sychophant who clearly supported the anti UKIP faction that were in the final stages of seizing control of the party and dragging it into their gutter as EUkip.

I am well aware that UKIP’s only real hope is if Lord Pearson does finally stand for leadership and is prepared to distance himself from the corruption amongst the leadership firmly taking control as a leader and controlling the anti UKIP current leadership and staff.

Sadly there is a danger that Lord Pearson may transpire to be gonadically challenged as he has shown some very clear examples of poor judgement in respect of UKIP in the past. IF he transpires to have been aware of the anti UKIP activities and the self enrichment and does nothing UKIP still needs a leader.

Do watch Nikki’s speach to the parliament – the content is indubitably sound and on UKIP’s message not the new anti UKIP message of apeasement and efforts to make more money for the leader in the EU by assisting the EU by forming a new pan EU Political Party Group in a politically crass move making allegiance with some of the most vile racist, xenophobic, sexually intollerant scum attracted to EU politics since the ambitions of such as Heidricht, Walter Funk, Mitterand, Barbie, Adanaur and de Gaulle.

Sadly, without a miracle Nikki would be incapable of leading UKIP. In terms of her intellectual ability and her admin skills I have absolutely no doubt she could lead the party but it is clear she has anger management problems, very poor presentational skills, a voive that is frequently near unintelligible and in her maiden speach her hunched posture total lack of delivery skills and strange voice Utterly preclude any chance of her making any influence as leader – I’m personally sorry but it is clear that with all the other challenges facing UKIP it is clear that Nikki does not want for passionate belief in the cause but the meeeja and the public will never grant the opportunity for her message to be heard.

Nuttall has at least shown the common sense to realise he is no leader and like his puppet master Nigel Farage lacks Officer Qualities. He has declined the opportunity to stand for leader and will represent his own interests in Bootle and the Northern EU region of Britain, where some allegedly take him seriously.

The other maiden of the day was David THE Desk Bannerman – if he were to be elected his serial lies, cheating and general dishonesty would become Noooz – at the moment none of the meeeja could care less about a bit part player in a clearly irrelevant party whose credibility has been destroyed.

However David Bannerman would come under intense scrutiny if he became leader – this clearly would have a crippling effect on the failing EUkip – not only would EUkip be the ‘busted flush’ Farage has reduced it too with not a single MEP elected on merit and not a single one with a reputation of ability, calibre, gravitas or competence. William Dartmouth has the profile of the invisible man and in the long run it will, I believe, be his greatest if not only assett.

Andreasen has acted EXACTLY as was warned when Farage announced he was going to ‘pander’ to this dishonest, corrupt and discreditted foreigner. Marta Andreassen, however you spin it, is utterly discreditted making a laughing stock of EUkip as she seeks to distance herself – may I suggest next time Farage lie, cheats and ignores the party members perhaps he should remember the time he lied, cheated and disregarded members for Marta Andreassen.

Now back to Bannerman’s maiden speech – it was uninspired, understandably nervous, badly rehearsed, poorly red and sounded dull in the extreme – whichever researcher wrote the speech must have cringed as Bannerman made a dull speech near unintelligible.

Two things, beyond the dishonesty of the speaker and his scrambled message, am I right in saying EUkip is so badly organised that he went into the chamber to face Britain’s greatest enemy since 1945 without support? Surely where possible a maiden speaker should be supported by his colleagues – could this indicate his popularity in EUkip?

Secondly having watched his speech I went to EUkip’s official web site where there was no comment on the content of his speech but there was comment damning him with feint praise saying his nerves were addred to by a Blue Card – sort of like a red card or yellow card in football? or like a black flag in motor racing?

EUkip could not even be bothered promoting the maiden speech of its deputy leader – well they clearly know better than most that he is irrelevant.

To assist those who might support him here is his speech, which I consider overly complex tortalagous and when badly read near unintelligible WITHOUT practice read it out loud to a disinterested 11 year old and you will understand the audience he was addressing!

‘ere ’tis:

David Campbell Bannerman, on behalf of the EFD Group . – Mr President, this is my first, or maiden, speech in this Parliament. As a UKIP MEP for the East of England, you will expect me to be a rebel and I will try not to disappoint you or my voters.

We are discussing today EU trade agreements, and in particular that with South Korea due to be signed this year. As we do not have much of the detail on this particular agreement, other than the fact, I believe, that two thirds of the benefits will accrue to South Korea and one third to the EU, I would like to make some more general points.

Many people are not aware that there are over a hundred separate bilateral EU trade agreements like this one; 116 is one estimate. There are trade agreements with countries such as the USA, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, India, China, Japan and South Africa. In Europe, there are trade agreements with Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Liechtenstein.

There are also trade agreements with non-EU EEA and EFTA countries such as Switzerland and Norway. Norway’s trade agreement religiously protects both its fishing and farming, and Norway is not a minnow. It is the EU’s fourth-largest import partner and sixth-largest export market.

What should a trade agreement like South Korea’s really contain, then? Switzerland, I believe, is a strong example. There are provisions abolishing customs duties and trade quotas on industrial and agricultural products. There are provisions to allow Swiss citizens the right to live and work in EU countries and for EU citizens to live and work in Switzerland. There are provisions for Switzerland to be part of the Schengen passport-free area. The Swiss can be in the European Environment Agency, if they wish, in the EU’s film and education programmes, and they can apply for EU research grants. There is cooperation on airlines, asylum and judicial matters. In short they have all the claimed benefits of EU membership, but without the cost.

It is true that Switzerland must pay CHF 600 million per year for access, but the Swiss Government reports savings for not being a member of the EU amounting to CHF 3.4 billion, a net saving of CHF 2.8 billion a year. Nor is Switzerland an insignificant trading partner either: 80% of Swiss exports go to the EU, and it is the EU’s fourth-largest trading partner.

My point is that trade agreements can achieve the benefits of EU trade without the burden of high regulatory costs, loss of sovereignty and of resources. Even the Commission website admits ‘Switzerland can develop and retain its own regulations in other areas which deviate from EU rulings. It is in its own interests, such as in financial and in labour markets.’ How Britain would love to deviate in a similar way over the Working Time Directive, Temporary Workers’ Directive or the new Fund Managers’ Directive!

So I conclude in asking, why not Britain? Why cannot Britain have a similar, friendly trade agreement with the EU like South Korea instead of full EU membership? Britain on its own is the largest single trading partner with the EU with a GBP 40 billion deficit a year. We too can have the kind of assurances the Swiss enjoy. We could, and I believe we should, be an independent free trading nation once again such as Norway, Switzerland and even South Korea.

THREE quick points:

01. Why is the speech NOT available through EUkip?

02. You will note David Bannerman was speaking NOT as a British MEP but as an EFD MEP representing Italy, Holland, Greece, Finland etc. as well as Britain, yet he spoke determinedly as a British MEP – can we expect the vile Lega Nord racists to be speaking on OUR behalf as EFD and as with Bannerman of Nikki in her speech ignoring all but themselves – will our EFD representation by the Lega Nord to be putting forward bombing boats with imigrant passengers or hunting down and ‘ethniclt’? cleansing perverts practicing perfectly legal perversions such as homosexuality or bisexuality – perversions boasted of by members of EUkip’s EU team!

03. Why was there no explanation of what the ‘Blue Card System’ means with clarification on EUkip’s web site.

Surely the greatest task is educating the British public to the idiocy of the EU systems.

Here is the official press release (why was not Bannerman trained/pepared?):

Press releaseReform of the European Parliament: third package adopted

Parliament’s Rules of Procedure – 06-05-2009 – 13:10

Amendments to Parliament’s Rules of Procedure, taking up changes agreed by the political groups in a third package of reforms to update its internal procedures, were approved by the European Parliament on Wednesday. MEPs also amended the rules of procedure with regard to the choice of the Member chairing the first session of the Parliament after the elections and introduce a blue card system where an MEP can question another MEP during a speech.
These reforms complete a process begun two years ago. The first two packages, adopted in 2007 and 2008, dealt with plenary sessions, EP reports, the legislative process and inter-institutional relations.

The report, drafted by Richard Corbett (PES, UK), was approved by 552 votes in favour,101 against and 51 abstentions. The adopted changes will enter into force at the beginning of next parliamentary term.

The changes approved include reforms to:
allow the use of joint committee meetings for complex legislative dossiers that cross committee boundaries,
make it mandatory for the Conference of Committee Chairs to give a recommendation to the Conference of Presidents on how to resolve any conflict of competences between committees,
generally increase co-operation between committees, notably by enhancing the role of opinion-giving committees;
formalise EP s consultation with European civil society,
clarify the role of “intergroups”, i.e. unofficial groupings formed on specific issues with Members from different political groups,
modify existing rules on debates in plenary,
introduce a motion to reject the Commission’s proposal in first reading and
formalise the negotiating procedure with other EU institutions (e.g. for “first reading” agreements).

New rules on the constitutive session

MEPs also amended the rules of procedure with regard to the choice of the Member chairing the first session of the Parliament after the elections. According to the new provisions, it is the outgoing EP President to chair the first sitting. In case he or she is not re-elected, it would be up to an outgoing Vice-President in order of precedence or, failing him or her, the Member having held office for the longest period to hold the office until the new President is elected.

Blue card – MEPs question each other during a speech

MEPs adopted an amendment saying that: “The President may give the floor to Members who indicate, by raising a blue card, their wish to put to another Member, during that Member’s speech, a question of no longer than half a minute’s duration, where the speaker agrees and where the President is satisfied that this will not lead to a disruption of the debate.”

These reforms complete a process begun two years ago, when a working group on EP Reform was proposed by Parliament President Hans-Gert Pöttering and established under the chairmanship of Dagmar Roth-Behrendt (PES, DE).

The first two packages, adopted in autumn 2007 and autumn 2008, related to the organisation of plenary sessions, the handling of EP reports, the operation of the legislative process and improvements in inter-institutional relations.

REF. : 20090505IPR55110Contact

——————————————————————————–

Richard FREEDMAN
: press-EN@europarl.europa.eu
: (32-2) 28 41448 (BXL)
: (33-3) 881 73785 (STR)
: (+32) 498 98 32 39

Let us hope that this blog is read by as many as possible who can influence the change from control by the anti UKIP EUkip leadership and return to the members with honesty, integrity, morality and transparency as UKIP, with the courage to give no quarter in seeking exposure and retribution of those who acted for their own gain at the expense of both UKIP, its members and OUR Country.

The small envelope logo at the end of this blog makes it easy to mail copies to friends and honest UKIP members who can make a difference by removing their anti UKIP self serving leadership team that have brought such shame to UKIP and the EUroSceptic movement. As they made allies of some of the most vile aspirants in EU politics and within EUkip’s leadership they have surrounded thems4elves with liars, cheats, bullies, blackmailers, crooks and some of the most sordid parasites ever to surface in British politics.

TO LEAVE THE EU

What is the exit and survival plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits of leaving The EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our border.

NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.

Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the MSM and Snivil Cervants.

The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU’s CAP – In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING!

To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we thus leave our children and the future, with shame!

Regards,
Greg L-W.
01291 – 62 65 62

PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS:ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS – GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!

I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning for withdrawal of these United Kingdoms from the EU and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country. Deny the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour. Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples.

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

LEAVE THE EU
to
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK