She kicked the ball into an open goal like what Nuttall could not do in his Tranmere days but to be fair its team coach Farage who should take the blame. La Hall simply pointed out that many MEPs go to Brussels collect the dosh disappear without doing their committee work. Can you name anyone asked the mischievous Neil. Yes the lady replied, Paul Nuttall has only attended one meeting of the Environment committee in over 3 years. Nuttall blustered on about opposing the EU but if you go to Brussels as an avowedly leave the EU MEP you are of course wide open to that kick in the balls from the LibDem ladies. Its what you call a soft target.
It is of course Farage's long time policy for all elected UKIP MEPs to go to Brussels. This policy also attracts the sort of person Farage wants as UKIP MEP wannabees. Those who have a flexible moral positions and a love of money will find themselves high up UKIP MEP slates. But as St Paul said, 'the love of money is the root of all evil'. UKIP in Brussels embodies the truth of St Paul's view. The founding father of UKIP, Alan Sked, opposed UKIP sending its elected members to Brussels but that of course requires putting principle before EU money.
Nuttall made an excellent point about how only 4% of EU staff are UK citizens but we comprise 12% of the EU by GDP or population. This got blown away easily by La Hall. How much more effective UKIP's position would be if they withdrew from Brussels until that anomaly at least is rectified. The EU however have Farage by the short and curlies. Don't turn up in Brussels and we will de-select you as an MEP. This was of course the Farage tactic against me and David Abbott when we were elected attending members of the NEC and led to the party's other name EUKIP. His chosen instrument to deselect us was Farage loyalist Bannerman. That's right the man who defected to the Tories. When Farage talks of loyalty that's what he means. Its not loyalty to UKIP and its ideals but unquestioning loyalty and obedience to Farage. That's why Nuttall is an MEP and deputy leader.
Its a pity UKIP rank and file do not realise the above. For its MEPs to be deselected by the EU would be a huge strategic advantage to UKIP in any UK election. Will it happen. Of not course. The love of money will triumph.
5 comments:
Original UKIP policy was to stand in EU parliamentary elections but for UKIP MEPs not to take their seats. This was a principled stance.
I am sorry to say that I was one of those who voted for the change on the basis that "we cannot expect people to vote for us if we won't work for them". Of course, we now know that the idea that MEPs can work for their constituents is ludicrous. They are there to serve the conveyor belt of EU legislation.
The change of policy has resulted in UKIP wasting its energies on EU elections which can make not the slightest difference to our EU membership and, of course, creating an ever closer union between the elected MEPs and the largesse they receive from Brussels.
At the 1999 election I can remember an emotional Derek Clark vowing that he would donate his salary to the party, if elected. Of course, we didn't succeed on that occasion so he may have forgotten.
Nigel Farage's set piece speeches are good box office and UKIP is getting more coverage than it used to - which would probably not occur with abstentionist MEPs.
Peter Kellner (Mr Catherine Ashton) of YouGov reckons that UKIP could well be the largest party at the next EU elections and he is probably right, if things go on as they are.
Mr Spalton,
Thx for this. It adds to our understanding of how UKIP got sucked into working for the EU.
UKIP could of course win every UK MEP seat and it would not make one iota of difference. We would still be in and paying for the EU.
The only way out is to repeal the 1972 European Act. I regret I worked for the Civil Service at that time. It was voted thru by such men of honour as Jeffrey Archer.
Thanks for identifying Mrs Kelner as the EU's Frumpy.
Or just walk away.
http://www.th-eu-nit.com/?code=N2U1NTdlMTgtM2NlMi1kYjY3LWQ4YjctNGU2NGI3MWMxNTI4XjYzYzBiMDlmLWY0MTktYTRjNi0xMTRiLTUwODUyZWUzZjE0NA==
There is principle, pragmatism and politics involved in this.
Whilst some may look at it as simply the inability to make any difference in the parliament, which is probably true, what would the effect be on Ukip's standing be as far as the voting public is concerned if they didn't turn up? How would that translate into elections at home?
Yes they serve the conveyor belt of rubber stamping but they can help constituents as William Dartmouth showed over the EAW.
Ukips presence puts pressure on the europhile parties of Lib, Lab, Con.
On balance I think the policy is a bit better than neutral and the money comes now whatever. Gone are the days when County (Unitary) Councillors did it as a public service, so why not MEPs?
Sadly none of this translates into votes in general elections and until Ukip decides it wants to be a real party and not just a pressure group intent on doing deals and starting from a position of weakness and than being intent on scoring own goals just before election time opinion polls will count for nothing.
Its a politically indefensible position Farage's EUKIP are in. That is why the IRA never took up their sets at Westminster. They won and got what the wanted. EUKIP can never win.
Post a Comment