Ukip-vs-EUkip

We aim to inform YOU & provide an archive re: Ukip to TRY to make it fit for purpose

> A GUEST POST: On Farage’s Party’s Betrayal of British Voters

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/12/2013

> A GUEST POST: On Farage’s Party’s Betrayal of British VotersTITLE
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

FARAGE, Nigel 80How could the Homosexual sorority & fraternity fault such makeup.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.

On Farage’s Party’s Betrayal of British Voters

A GUEST POST

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on TwitterRe-TWEET my Twitterings 

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

&

Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 

their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!

On Nigel Farage’s EU Party’s Betrayal of British Voters in general and the few remaining UKIP supporters gullible enough to be acting ethically, if misguidedly!

The article below, exposing Farage and his clique, is as received from a long term source within the staff of The EU who has worked for many years for the UKIP cause, as members see it rather than as its self serving EU staff & the leadership clique and their claque see it!

..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~

THE TRUTH ABOUT FARAGE’S EFD GROUP – AN ORGANISATION HUGELY SUBVERSIVE TO UK INTERESTS THAT WANTS UKRAINE IN THE EU


BELOW ARE AMENDMENTS FROM THE EFD GROUP – IE FARAGE’S GROUP – ON “THE OUTCOME OF THE VILNIUS SUMMIT AND THE FUTURE OF THE EASTERN PARTNERSHIP IN PARTICULAR AS REGARDS UKRAINE”.

GROSS HYPOCRISY AND TREACHERY.


Do Ukip members know that Farage’s allies in the EFD Group (of which Ukip is the largest constituent part) want to include the Ukraine, a country of 45m inhabitants, into the EU?

Do Farage’s constituents know this and did they vote for Farage and Ukip to achieve this ambition?

Do Ukip members and supporters know what Farage and his fellow MEPs are doing in Brussels and Strasbourg?

BACKGROUND

On 11.12.13, in a debate in the European Parliament, Farage distinguished between immigrants from poor countries and those from rich nations.  He implied we should refuse migrants from poor countries because they would have access to our benefits and services and he therefore rejected free entry into the UK of Romanian and Bulgarian immigrants. 

According to the IMF, Romania in 2012 had a GDP per capita income of USD 12,722;  Bulgaria USD 14,103.  The Ukraine had a GDP per capita income of USD 7,295.  The UK had a per capita income of USD 36569.

This means the UK had a per capita income five times that of the Ukraine but only two and a half times that of Romania and Bulgaria. 

GROSS HYPOCRISY

Farage, the same day, also attacked Tory MEP Van Orden as being the Rapporteur for the entry of Bulgaria into the EU some years ago.  Meanwhile, members of Farage’s own EFD Group are supporting the entry of the Ukraine into the EU – with all the implications this has for the UK taxpayer!  The population of Ukraine is 45m, almost twice as large as that of Bulgaria and Romania combined.

The EFD Group is subversive to the interests of the EU.  Members of this group have sought to expand the EU to include the Ukraine.

When will Farage expel the MEPs Tadeusz Cymański, Zbigniew Ziobro from the EFD and others who supported them?

Do Farage’s members know that Farage is in alliance with those whose desire it is to expand the EU and burden our taxpayers with the vast costs of Ukrainian membership and, ultimately, the free entry into the UK of 45m Ukrainians?

11.12.2013                                                                             B7‑0557/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0558/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0559/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0567/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0568/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0569/2013 } RC1/Am. 9

Amendment  9

Tadeusz Cymański, Zbigniew Ziobro

on behalf of the EFD Group

Joint motion for a resolution

PPE, S&D, ALDE, Verts/ALE, ECR, EFD

Outcome of the Vilnius Summit and the future of the Eastern Partnership, in particular as regards Ukraine

Joint motion for a resolution

Paragraph 2

Joint motion for a resolution

2. Deplores the decision by the Ukrainian authorities, under the lead of President Yanukovych, to withdraw from signing the Association Agreement with the EU during the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, despite the clear will on the EU side to continue with the association process, provided the conditions are met; considers this decision to be a major missed opportunity in EU-Ukraine relations and for Ukraine’s aspirations; acknowledges Ukraine’s European aspirations, as expressed in the ongoing demonstrations by Ukrainian civil society in the Euromaidan in Kyiv and in other cities all over Ukraine, which did not hesitate to take its disapproval of President Yanukovych’s decision out onto the streets, and reiterates its view that a deepening of relations between the EU and Ukraine and the fact of offering Ukraine a European perspective are of great significance and in the interests of both parties;

Amendment

2. Deplores the decision by the Ukrainian authorities, under the lead of President Yanukovych, to withdraw from signing the Association Agreement with the EU during the Eastern Partnership Summit in Vilnius, despite the clear will on the EU side to continue with the association process, provided the conditions are met; considers this decision to be a major missed opportunity in EU-Ukraine relations and for Ukraine’s aspirations; acknowledges Ukraine’s European aspirations, as expressed in the ongoing demonstrations by Ukrainian civil society in the Euromaidan in Kyiv and in other cities all over Ukraine, which did not hesitate to take its disapproval of President Yanukovych’s decision out onto the streets, and reiterates its view that a deepening of relations between the EU and Ukraine and the fact of offering Ukraine a roadmap for full EU membership are of great significance and in the interests of both parties;

EXPLANATION:  The words “a European perspective” have been replaced with “roadmap for full EU membership”

ALSO SEE THESE AMENDMENTS

11.12.2013                                                                             B7‑0557/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0558/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0559/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0567/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0568/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0569/2013 } RC1/Am. 7

Amendment  7

Tadeusz Cymański, Zbigniew Ziobro

on behalf of the EFD Group

Joint motion for a resolution

PPE, S&D, ALDE, Verts/ALE, ECR, EFD

Outcome of the Vilnius Summit and the future of the Eastern Partnership, in particular as regards Ukraine

Joint motion for a resolution

Recital F a (new)


Joint motion for a resolution

 

 

Amendment

Fa. whereas up to now the EU has not prepared any realistic policy towards Ukraine to bring it closer to the EU and help the country with its economic problems;

11.12.2013                                                                             B7‑0557/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0558/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0559/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0567/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0568/2013 }

                                                                                               B7‑0569/2013 } RC1/Am. 8

Amendment  8

Tadeusz Cymański, Zbigniew Ziobro

on behalf of the EFD Group

Joint motion for a resolution

PPE, S&D, ALDE, Verts/ALE, ECR, EFD

Outcome of the Vilnius Summit and the future of the Eastern Partnership, in particular as regards Ukraine

Joint motion for a resolution

Recital G a (new)

Joint motion for a resolution

Amendment

Ga. whereas a visa-free regime should be implemented for Ukrainians travelling to the EU;

Farage, Ukip and Political Correctness – Frightened Charlatans

Many people wonder what Farage and his cronies do in Europe.  When supporters of Ukip have read what follows, many will understandably reach the impression that the party is subversive to the interests of the UK.

On Tuesday 10th December, the European Parliament voted on the Estrela Report (A7-0426/2013), which originated from the left wing Committee on Woman’s rights and Gender Equality.

Its ramifications were broad, relating to the imposition on nation states of hard left theology relating to abortion, homosexuality and allied topics.

Amazingly (or not amazingly if one has watched Ukip’s pattern on political correctness), Ukip abstained.  They refused even to back an amendment from conservative members of their own EFD Group.  By contrast, the Tories voted in favour of this and their own amendment (including David Campbell Bannerman), demonstrating considerably more spine than Ukip’s MEPs.  

Fortunately, no thanks to the politically-correct charlatans of Ukip, the Report was defeated by merely seven votes.  Had the vote been closer, the dereliction of duty on the part of the Ukip MEPs would have ensured the Report succeeded.

Many people believe Ukip are anti-political-correctness and broadly patriotic.  This is not the case:  Farage and his cronies are politically-correct cowards, unable and unwilling to follow the wishes of their supporters.  

These are some of the Report’s measures, with appropriate comments where necessary in capitals.  If Ukip’s cowardly inaction had prevented the ECR/EPP motion from being passed then this would have facilitated the passage of the Estrela Report and the motions beneath.

LGTBI refers to ‘lesbian, gay, transgender, bisexual and intermediate’.

Quote:

“7.    Stresses that within the EU and where relevant in its external policies, the EU must ensure that laws and policies are amended, enacted or repealed to respect and protect sexual and reproductive health and rights and enable all individuals to exercise them without discrimination on any grounds;”
COMMENT:  Ukip’s purpose is not to impose more legislation, leave along hostile left wing theology on the UK.

“8.    Emphasises that reproductive choices and fertility services should be provided within a non-discriminatory framework;”
COMMENT:  This encourages health tourism from migrants and others.

“10.    Stresses that forced or coerced sterilisation of any person represents a breach of that person’s human rights and bodily integrity, and calls on the Member States to abolish any existing law that imposes sterilisation;”
COMMENT:   Surely up to member states to decide.   What about the mentally retarded person who cannot make such a decision and cannot look after the child?

“14.    Calls on the Member States to provide access to sexual and reproductive health services through a rights-based approach and without any discrimination on the grounds of ethnic origin, housing status, migration status, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, health or marital status”

COMMENT:  Thus, fertility services for lesbians.  Aren’t children entitled to a mother and a father?

“18.    Calls on the Member States to guarantee sustainable funding to public services and civil society organisations providing services in the field of sexual and reproductive health;”
COMMENT:    Up to member states to decide how they spend their money!

“24.    Urges the Member States and the candidate countries, in view of the impact of the financial and economic crisis on the public health sector, to provide – free of charge or in a manner that is financially accessible – adapted contraceptive information and services and other sexual and reproductive health services, such as annual gynaecological check-ups and mammograms, as well as measures for the prevention, diagnosis and treatment of STIs, which include high-quality professional advice and counselling, to all sections of the population, including women in rural areas, young people, ethnic minorities, migrants, people with disabilities, and the socially excluded;”
COMMENT:  Ukip is not against spending money for migrants and health tourists?!

“33.    Recommends that, as a human rights and public health concern, high-quality abortion services should be made legal, safe, and accessible to all within the public health systems of the Member States, including non-resident women, who often seek these services in other countries because of restrictive abortion laws in their country of origin, and to avoid clandestine abortions that seriously endanger women’s physical and mental health;”
COMMENT:  Ukip, clearly, is not opposed to the expenditure of taxpayers’ monies on citizens from overseas countries.

“34.    Underlines that even when legal, abortion is often prevented or delayed by obstacles to the access of appropriate services, such as the widespread use of conscientious objection, medically unnecessary waiting periods or biased counselling; stresses that the Member States should regulate and monitor the use of conscientious objection in the key professions, so as to ensure that reproductive healthcare is guaranteed as an individual’s right, while access to lawful services is ensured and appropriate public referrals systems of good quality are in place; stresses that the right to conscientious objection is an individual right and not a collective policy, and that  advice and counselling must be confidential and non judgmental; is concerned that medical staff are coerced into refusing SRHR services in religion-based hospitals and clinics throughout the EU;”

COMMENT
  Clearly, Farage’s Ukip is not prepared to vote in favour of an amendment that opposes those who would override conscientious objection!

“41.    Calls on the Member States to make sexuality education classes compulsory for all primary and secondary school children and to ensure that space is made available for this subject in school curricula; stresses the importance of regularly reviewing and updating the teaching of sexuality education and of placing special emphasis on respect for women and on gender equality; “
COMMENT:  This is about sex education for five year olds including, doubtless, gay sexual education.

“44.    Calls on the Member States to provide adolescent-friendly sexual and reproductive health services which are in accordance with age, maturity and evolving capacities, which do not discriminate on the grounds of gender, marital status, disability, or sexual orientation/identity, and which are accessible without the consent of parents or guardians;”
COMMENT:  Up to Member States to decide but why should lesbians have fertility treatment?

“51.    Underlines that sexual education must include non-discriminatory information and convey a positive view of LGBTI persons, in order to underpin and protect in an effective manner the rights of young LGBTI people;”
COMMENT: Brainwashing!

“58.    Calls on the Commission and the Member States to address the specific SRHRs of people living with HIV/AIDS, with a focus on the needs of women and at-risk populations, including persons in prostitution, prisoners, migrants and injection-drug users, notably by integrating access to testing and treatment and reversing the underlying socio-economic factors, such as gender inequality and discrimination, contributing to the risk to women and populations at risk of contracting HIV/AIDS;”
COMMENT:  PC Codswallop and what about the costs?

“73.    Supports Recommendation 1903 (2010) of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly to allocate 0.7 % of gross national income to ODA; calls for the EU to maintain this commitment through the financing and implementation of the 2014-2020 European external actions instruments and European Development Fund;”
COMMENT:  In other words, Ukip thinks it acceptable to abstain on an amendment excluding this levy on British taxpayers.

THE EFD, OF WHICH UKIP IS A PART, PRODUCED A SENSIBLE AMENDMENT, PART OF WHICH IS REPRODUCED BENEATH.  
UKIP ABSTAINED.  
THE MEPS ABSTAINING WERE FARAGE, NUTTALL, CLARK, BATTEN, AGNEW, HELMER AND DARTMOUTH.  
WHY?  Even the Tories voted in favour.

A FLAVOUR OF THE AMENDMENT MAY BE FOUND HERE

“Fundamental right to freedom of conscience and freedom of conscientious objection

8.    Upholds the universal human right to conscientious objection together with the responsibility of the state to ensure that patients are able to access lawful medical care in a timely manner, in particular in cases of emergency prenatal and maternal health care; recalls that no person, hospital or institution should be coerced, held liable or discriminated against in any manner because of a refusal to perform, accommodate, assist or submit to an abortion or any act which could cause the death of a human foetus or embryo, for any reason;
European Union competences on this matter

9.    Notes that it is a competence of the Member States to formulate and implement policies on SRHR;

10.    Notes that it is a competence of the Member States to formulate and implement policies on sexual education in schools;

11.    Invites, therefore, the EU institutions, bodies and agencies to comply with EU law and refrain from any intervention in this policy area that seeks to re-interpret the legal basis;
Sexuality education implemented by the Member States

12.    Recognises the rights, duties and responsibilities of parents and other persons legally responsible for adolescents to provide, in a manner consistent with the evolving capacities of the adolescent, appropriate direction and guidance in sexual and reproductive matters;

13.    Recalls – in accordance with the principle of ‘public policy doctrine’ and internationally accepted standards – that a child’s parents or legal guardians have the freedom to ensure that the child receives an education in conformity with their own convictions, and that children should not be compelled to receive teaching on sexuality education, including the promotion of SRHR and abortion, against the wishes of their parents or legal guardians, the best interests of the child being the guiding principle; 

14.    Recalls that the right of parents to educate their children according to their religious or non-religious convictions includes their right to refuse any undue interference by state or non-state actors in their education;

15.    Emphasises that sexuality education is particularly necessary given that young people have access, from an early age, to pornographic and degrading content, especially via the internet; emphasises, therefore, that sexuality education must be part of a broader, supportive approach to young people’s emotional development so as to enable them to form mutually respectful relationships with members of the opposite sex; encourages the Member States to introduce campaigns directed at parents and at adults who work with young people, in order to raise their awareness of the harmful effects of pornography on adolescents;
Prenatal and maternal health in development policies

16.    Invites the Commission to ensure that EU development cooperation includes an explicit focus on, and concrete targets for, prenatal and maternal health;

17.    Calls on the EEAS, through the EU Delegations in developing countries, to work with the governments of those countries to ensure that female children enjoy their rights without discrimination based on their sex, inter alia by ending the unethical and discriminatory practices of prenatal sex selection, abortion of female foetuses, female infanticide, early forced marriage and female genital mutilation;

18.    Invites the Commission to maintain in its development priorities access to quality, affordable, acceptable and accessible prenatal and maternal health care services, to relational, affective and sexual education for boys and girls, which, in line with Article 26(3) of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, is the prior responsibility of their parents, and to voluntary family planning, including natural family planning methods, while combating sex-based discrimination leading to sex-selective and involuntary abortions, forced sterilisation and sexual violence, as well as ensuring the provision of prenatal and maternal health care supplies, including HIV prevention, treatment, care and support without discrimination;

19.    Reaffirms the sovereign right of each state to react to the proposals of the present resolution in conformity with its own national laws, with full respect for the various religious and ethical values and cultural backgrounds of its people (the ‘public policy doctrine’), and in conformity with universally recognised international human rights;”

THE ECR, WHICH INCLUDES THE TORIES, ALSO OPPOSED THE ESTELA REPORT AND PRODUCED THEIR OWN MOTION IN ITS PLACE.

1.    Notes that the formulation and implementation of policies on SRHR and on sexual education in schools is a competence of the Member States;

2.     Notes that, even though it is a competence of the Member States to formulate and implement policies on health and on education, the EU can contribute to the promotion of best practices among Member States;

3.    Instructs its President to forward this resolution to the Council, the Commission, the governments and national parliaments of the Member States, the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights and the UN Secretary-General.

ABSTAINING WERE FARAGE, NUTTALL, HELMER (AGAINST HIS EX COLLEAGUES IN THE TORY PARTY WHO, CLEARLY, FEEL LESS CONSTRAINED THAN HE DOES UNDER FARAGE) , CLARK, BATTEN, AGNEW AND DARTMOUTH.

CONCLUSION:    Few people who have read the above would dispute the statement that Ukip, under the leadership of Farage, is a politically-correct organisation, incapable of opposing left wing theology and is guilty of a dereliction of duty.   Those who have observed Ukip’s voting habits in Europe will be unsurprised by this latest betrayal.


 

And don’t say it doesn’t matter because the vote was defeated.  Farage and co abstaining was still if not duplicitous at very least cowardly! 

To view the original as first published CLICK HERE
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

We welcome comments but reserve the right to moderate & refuse libelous or offensive comments and those we choose to delete when written by unidentifiable individuals hidden in anonymity in a cowardly manner to defame or abuse. No comment has EVER been barred or deleted which is genuine & clearly authored by a named & identifiable individual. You will note many comments made have been commented on and even corrected by the blog owner. We welcome genuine comments.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

 
%d bloggers like this: