Ukip-vs-EUkip

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

Archive for the ‘Sir George Younger Leader of The HoC’ Category

#0672* – Nikki SINCLAIRE MEP’s & Her Team’s Petition …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 10/10/2011

#0672* – Nikki SINCLAIRE MEP’s & Her Team’s Petition …

 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!  
.
Nikki SINCLAIRE MEP’s & Her Team’s Petition …!
Has over 120,000 signatures & is the ONLY valid Cross Bench Petition presented to The House of Commons!

Why is the media so dishonest that they interview everyone but Sinclaire – are they so VERY scared of losing their cushy EU Grants and massive subsidies?

.

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

UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 13 SEPTEMBER 2011

STEVE ROTHERAM, ALISON MCGOVERN, DR THÉRÈSE COFFEY, JOHN PUGH, MR DAVID NUTTALL, JIM SHANNON and GAVIN BARWELL

Evidence heard in Public
Questions 1 – 30

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.    
This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.
Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.
Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.
Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

Oral Evidence

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 13 September 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

John Hemming

Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Mr George Mudie

Steve Rotheram, Alison McGovern, Dr Thérèse Coffey, John Pugh, Mr David Nuttall, Jim Shannon and Gavin Barwell made representations.

~~~~~~~~~~ 
CUT unrelated to Referendum Debate on EU Membership
& the petition for an In/Out Referendum of 100,000+ signatures 
Collected by & Delivered to Parliament vi Drowning Street 
By: Indipendent MEP Nikki Sinclaire & her Team & Cross Party supporters
~~~~~~~~~~

Q12 Chair: Thank you.

I understand that you are here to make a bid for time on a paper petition.

Mr Nuttall: Yes, that is correct. It is a hybrid e-petition in that, I understand, more than 80,000 of the names were collected in the more traditional paper form and 20,000 were collected electronically through what might be termed an e-petition. I trust that the Committee would not wish to discriminate against it simply because some of the names were collected through a more traditional route.

Nevertheless, as you will be aware, last Thursday a petition containing in excess of 100,000 names was submitted to call for a referendum on whether we remain a member of the European Union. I suggest that that matter is of enormous national interest. The country has not had the opportunity to vote on that for some 36 years. Many millions of people outside the House and many Members, including me, were not able to vote in that referendum and would like an opportunity to be able to influence the debate on our continued relationship with Europe.

On support for the debate, the petition was handed in by members of the Conservative and Labour parties, and by members from other parties. My hon. Friend the Member for Strangford is with me today. He is a DUP Member, and he supports the bid. On the other side of the argument, the Government are opposed to holding a referendum. To that extent, this is perfect Back Bench business, because there are clearly two sides to the argument.

In view of the national importance of the subject, I ask that it be granted a one-day debate. As you will be aware, I sit through business questions on Thursdays and am acutely aware of the intense pressures on business time. As a member of the Procedure Committee, I know only too well the competing pressures for time in the House, but I feel that this is a matter that would generate enormous national attention. As with other debates that your Committee has sanctioned in the past, the national media would focus on the Chamber to see the outcome of the debate. It would be quite feasible to draft a votable motion calling on the Government to introduce legislation to provide for the holding of a referendum on our continued membership of the European Union.

Q13 Jane Ellison: I have a quick question to get some clarification. Do you see that, although you are bidding for a debate on having a referendum, such a debate would essentially be a proxy debate for in/out? What you said about there being a lot of interest would definitely be true if the House debated the whole in/out thing, but it would only be true of a debate on having a referendum if the debate were essentially a proxy for an in/out debate.

Mr Nuttall: There would be a debate on the nature of the referendum question, which is the crucial issue in many ways. It does not necessarily have to be an in/out referendum. In many ways, I think it should be a question of in or EFTA-the European Free Trade Association. That is what many people thought they were signing up for when they voted, nearly four decades ago, to join the EEC-the European Economic Community-as it was in those days. It has grown and developed since then.

Q14 Mr Bone: The Committee is looking for something that, first of all, neither Front Bench particularly wants to debate. There are different views within the political parties, so you would want Conservative Members arguing both ways and Labour and other parties arguing both ways, This motion is not about the issue of whether we should be in or out; it is about whether there should be a referendum, isn’t it?

Mr Nuttall: Yes.

Q15 Mr Bone: So I suppose all those boxes are ticked.

Mr Nuttall: Yes. My view is that opposition will come from those people who do not think that we should have a referendum because they want to stay in. My argument is that in a referendum they would be able to vote to stay in. As I mentioned earlier, the Government’s view is that there is no need for a referendum because of the referendum back in the 1970s.

Q16 Mr Bone: There will also be people who support a referendum because they want to stay in.

Mr Nuttall: Yes, there are. Coincidentally, and rather strangely, on the way here I met the Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. He supports having a referendum, but he is quite open that he would vote to stay in the European Union.

Q17 John Hemming: A lot of people came out in support of the previous one. We know that you are not isolated, but do you have the number of Members who have signed up to support your application?

Mr Nuttall: Yes. Last Thursday, a number of Members of Parliament from different parties supported the submission of the petition. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Stone could fill a whole day on his own. [Laughter.]

Q18 John Hemming: I know he could fill a whole day, but formal written support for the application is the issue. People need to sign up to say that they would like to have the debate.

Jim Shannon: I just wanted to add my support. Questions have been asked about the support both for and against. Obviously, from my own party’s point of view, we would be very keen to see a referendum. I am also aware that MPs who represent other areas in Northern Ireland are perhaps in a different camp. Therefore, that would provide the energy for a debate. There is a difference of opinion among the MPs who represent Northern Ireland. At the same time, we have a strong lobby of constituents who have indicated that they want to see a referendum; they want to see the debate. Where better to have a debate than in the mother of Parliaments where the democratic expression can be made and the people can contribute? I feel that that opportunity is one our constituents would like to see happen.

Q19 Chair: One of the key things that we look at is topicality. Why is it that we need to have this debate now? Although your petition gives a hook to hang it on, we normally require a list of signatures of supporting cross-party Members and a votable motion. Is there a massive urgency to have this debate immediately? We have two slots of time when we get back in October, but as you saw earlier there are huge demands on that time. Is there an enormous urgency or is this something that we can work on for longer?

Mr Nuttall: I think that the many millions of people who are concerned about this issue would just be glad to see it somewhere on the agenda. There has been a Procedure Committee report sat on the Order Paper for months, but at least it is in the queue and members of that Committee are happy that it is in the queue. We know that one day it will appear. If this was in the queue, it is better than it never being in the queue. Part of the problem with the European issue is that because it has been going on for 30 or 40 years-in the same way as the previous submission with regard to the Hillsborough disaster-there is always an issue that will be a volcano today rather than something that plods along. To that extent, there is always something that is of more immediate consequence. The essence of this bid is the fact that there are 100,000 plus signatures on a petition-not the new-fangled e-petition scheme-who are calling for this matter to be debated. To that extent, there is some flexibility for it to be fitted into the agenda. It is a question of getting it in the list or in the queue.

Q20 Chair: Did you want to add something?

Jim Shannon: Europe is very relevant to us all, especially to my constituents. Certainly, the opportunity to have a debate on the European referendum would be something that they wish to see. I feel it is opportune and immediate. Hopefully, the opportunity to have a debate will be given to us.

Q21 Chair: Thank you. As we said to the last group, we will make a decision straight after this meeting, so we will let people know this afternoon. 
To view the full Back Bench Business Committee meeting CLICK HERE

Later that afternoon the Back Bench Committee announced its schedule for October:
The Backbench Business Committee has scheduled the following debates to take place in backbench time:

  • Thursday 13 October in the Chamber: A debate on three reports from the Procedure Committee followed by a general debate on High Speed Two.
  • Thursday 13 October in Westminster Hall: A debate on responses to the riots in August, including the issue of sanctions for those involved, which has been raised in an e-petition
  • Monday 17 October in the Chamber: A debate on the disclosure of documents to the Hillsborough Independent Panel. This issue has also been raised in an e-petition.

To view this decision CLICK HERE

We understand that although subject to revision a full Debate on the Nikki Sinclaire MEP’s petition for an In/Out EU Referendum as presented with the approval and verification of Sir George Younger and presented at committee by the Tory MP for Bury North David Nuttall MP – The only petition of its ilk and definitively the only 100,000+ signatures as presented to Parliament and approved by Sir George Younger Leader of The House of Commons and Lord Privy Seal.

We are led to believe by both politiciamns and also the media that there is likely to be a debate before Christmas on the issue.

Sadly I believe that the majority of Politicians will do all they can to block a referendum as they know instinctively and also from various polls that the British people in a free and fair In/Out EU Referendum will on an informed basis vote massively in favour of leaving the EU.

I note that David Nuttall MP’s web site contained the following entry:

Time we all had a say

It is over 36 years since we, the British public, had a say on what we think of our relationship with our European neighbours. Back in 1975 there was a referendum on whether or not we stayed in what was then referred to as ‘The Common Market’ the European Economic Community the E.E.C. Since then the nature of the organisation which the British people voted to remain part of has changed beyond all recognition. Firstly, the word ‘Economic’ was dropped and we became members of the European Community. Then, we became members of the European Union. All without any consultation of the British people.
It is now time we all had our say!

To which I responded:

 Hi,

sadly The Heath Referendum was without any shadow of doubt utterly corrupt or we would never have become a vassal of the supra national EU.

Let us not forget that Enoch Powell warned of exactly the outcome we now suffer in his speech of February 1970 which you can read at:
http://themidnightgroup.blogspot.com/2011/01/25-feb-1970-dont-say-you-were-not.html

It is also a metter of public record that Ted Heath admitted he had lied to Parliament and the peoples of Britain as he believed had he told the truth the people would have voted against Ratification of his signature to The Treaty of Rome – Too Damned Right We Would Have.

The You Gov poll commissioned by Independent MEP Nikki Sinclaire showed clearly that:

70%+ Tory Voters want an In/Our EU Referendum
66% of Tory Voters would vote to Leave-The-EU
52% of all voters would vote to Leave-The-EU
30% only of all voters would vote to remain in The EU.

Rather more conclusive percentages than were even obtained by Heath’s lies and a massive pro campaign and funding which by dishonesty won would now democratically vote against.

We do know based on The EU track record of corruption and the EUroPhile proppensity for lies that huge funding and man power would pour in to try to keep us in The EU.

It is far far better to die on ones feet that live on ones knees slowly being nibbled to death by ducks as the EU salami slices our freedom, ratchets ever tighter the barbed wire circle of stars and erradicates the fundamental human right of self determination.

We were lied to inorder to dupe us into joining and they continue to lie at every stage.

We deserve an HONEST & FAIR Referendum or the divisions & discontent will rage for the next 40 years – save only when the EU collapses as it surely will.

We need to restore our democracy, sovereignty, borders and judiciary in good order before that collapse already our association with The EU is damaging our economy possibly irreprably.

Please help ensure we regain our liberty and the freedom to manoveur in order to survive in an increasingly competitive world not merely as also rans to be fed into the maw of the failing behemoth.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 – 62 65 62
of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.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

&

Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in David NUTTALL MP, Nikki SINCLAIRE MEP, PETITION for an EU Referendum, Sir George Younger Leader of The HoC | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: