Nigel Farage: Working hard to defend British interests by getting drunk in pubs and clubs.
Tim Congdon says that he has no intention of becoming an MEP. Good for him. UKIP needs a leader who is based in Britain and can devote their time to reforming the party.
But what of our MEPs?
We already know that UKIP MEPs have a dreadful attendance record. They rarely appear at Committee.
Nigel Farage has bagged a position on the Committee that entails amongst the least work so far as Committees go: The fishing committee.
Meanwhile, no UKIP MEP sits on the all important Constitutional Committee, which overseas the transfer of power from the member states to the Commission. In effect, the only UK MEP who minds the UK's interest on this Committee is ironically Andrew Brons. Will Farage request a transfer? Will pigs fly?
Meanwhile, UKIP MEPs employ a large team of staff, most of whom do nothing but mind the party's internal affairs in the UK, which is strictly illegal. In fact, UKIP cannot afford staff, so it uses the taxpayer - courtesy of the Parliament - to finance staff who then use their time in a manner that is forbidden by the Parliament. Earlier this year, the Sunday Times referred directly to this practice when it revealed that Messrs Bannerman and Agnew used their employees' allowances to finance Reeve who worked on elections. And let us not forget those UKIP/EFD staff who worked illegally to promote Farage's humiliating bid for Buckingham. This is now of interest to OLAF. See: LINK
UKIP MEPs cannot be bothered to vote or carry out the research on the votes that occur at least one week a month, usually in Strasbourg. During those sessions, hundreds of votes can occur each day on both the underlying resolutions and proposals, plus the amendments thereto.
UKIP MEPs justify their stance to abstain instead of voting on the basis that the best place to determine British legislation is in the British Parliament. True, in an ideal world, but this also means that in the real world UKIP MEPs are not doing the work for which they were elected.
Given that over 75% of British laws come from the EU, a fact that UKIP never tires of telling us, why do UKIP MEPs abstain? It is because they cannot be bothered to carry out the research and work involved in casting their votes, where they might occasionally have a beneficial effect on the legislation. Sometimes this would make the difference between passing a worthwhile proposal or adopting an injurious resolution.
Take the following example:
On Wed 22nd Sept, UKIP MEPs voted on the "Placing on the Market and Use of Biocidal Products; Report: Christa Klaß (A7-0239/2010)".
Of some 360 amendments to that vast piece of legislation (many amendments of which were voted en masse), UKIP MEPs abstained on the following:
Committee Amendment 134 which reduced red tape for business and the time for evaluation of a biocidal product to be authorised from 12 months to 6.
Committee Amendment 156 - same.
Committee Amendments 181 - related to a safety measure.
Committee Amendment 184 - reduced red tape and improved safety.
Committee Amendment 192 - protected business investment and the protection of data.
Committee Amendment 205 - related to consumer safety.
40 plus MEPs Amendment 337D - related to safety and reduction of red tape.
Committee Amendment 353D - related to safety.
IMCO Amendment 349 - red tape reduction.
Committee Amendment 224 - related to cost and fees, which were only allowable if justified.
Committee Amendment 260, 267, 274 and 299 - related to relieving animal cruelty and less red tape.
Committee Amendment 251, 291, 322 and 307 - related to lessening red tape and pointless animal testing and safeguarding animal welfare.
Green Amendment 341 - related to animal welfare, reducing red tape and overseeing human health.
Summary:
The above example demonstrates that UKIP MEPs were too busy enjoying the good life in Strasbourg than to do what they were elected to do: legislate in the interests of their country. The upshot, per the examples above, was that opportunities to reduce red tape for business, alleviate animal cruelty and unnecessary testing on animals were all flagrantly disregarded in an instance of gross negligence to their electors.
This information has been provided by an insider who is fed up with the grossly negligent manner in which UKIP MEPs treat their affairs.
We already know that UKIP MEPs have a dreadful attendance record. They rarely appear at Committee.
Nigel Farage has bagged a position on the Committee that entails amongst the least work so far as Committees go: The fishing committee.
Meanwhile, no UKIP MEP sits on the all important Constitutional Committee, which overseas the transfer of power from the member states to the Commission. In effect, the only UK MEP who minds the UK's interest on this Committee is ironically Andrew Brons. Will Farage request a transfer? Will pigs fly?
Meanwhile, UKIP MEPs employ a large team of staff, most of whom do nothing but mind the party's internal affairs in the UK, which is strictly illegal. In fact, UKIP cannot afford staff, so it uses the taxpayer - courtesy of the Parliament - to finance staff who then use their time in a manner that is forbidden by the Parliament. Earlier this year, the Sunday Times referred directly to this practice when it revealed that Messrs Bannerman and Agnew used their employees' allowances to finance Reeve who worked on elections. And let us not forget those UKIP/EFD staff who worked illegally to promote Farage's humiliating bid for Buckingham. This is now of interest to OLAF. See: LINK
UKIP MEPs cannot be bothered to vote or carry out the research on the votes that occur at least one week a month, usually in Strasbourg. During those sessions, hundreds of votes can occur each day on both the underlying resolutions and proposals, plus the amendments thereto.
UKIP MEPs justify their stance to abstain instead of voting on the basis that the best place to determine British legislation is in the British Parliament. True, in an ideal world, but this also means that in the real world UKIP MEPs are not doing the work for which they were elected.
Given that over 75% of British laws come from the EU, a fact that UKIP never tires of telling us, why do UKIP MEPs abstain? It is because they cannot be bothered to carry out the research and work involved in casting their votes, where they might occasionally have a beneficial effect on the legislation. Sometimes this would make the difference between passing a worthwhile proposal or adopting an injurious resolution.
Take the following example:
On Wed 22nd Sept, UKIP MEPs voted on the "Placing on the Market and Use of Biocidal Products; Report: Christa Klaß (A7-0239/2010)".
Of some 360 amendments to that vast piece of legislation (many amendments of which were voted en masse), UKIP MEPs abstained on the following:
Committee Amendment 134 which reduced red tape for business and the time for evaluation of a biocidal product to be authorised from 12 months to 6.
Committee Amendment 156 - same.
Committee Amendments 181 - related to a safety measure.
Committee Amendment 184 - reduced red tape and improved safety.
Committee Amendment 192 - protected business investment and the protection of data.
Committee Amendment 205 - related to consumer safety.
40 plus MEPs Amendment 337D - related to safety and reduction of red tape.
Committee Amendment 353D - related to safety.
IMCO Amendment 349 - red tape reduction.
Committee Amendment 224 - related to cost and fees, which were only allowable if justified.
Committee Amendment 260, 267, 274 and 299 - related to relieving animal cruelty and less red tape.
Committee Amendment 251, 291, 322 and 307 - related to lessening red tape and pointless animal testing and safeguarding animal welfare.
Green Amendment 341 - related to animal welfare, reducing red tape and overseeing human health.
Summary:
The above example demonstrates that UKIP MEPs were too busy enjoying the good life in Strasbourg than to do what they were elected to do: legislate in the interests of their country. The upshot, per the examples above, was that opportunities to reduce red tape for business, alleviate animal cruelty and unnecessary testing on animals were all flagrantly disregarded in an instance of gross negligence to their electors.
This information has been provided by an insider who is fed up with the grossly negligent manner in which UKIP MEPs treat their affairs.
Excellent blog.
ReplyDeleteFancy the content I have seen so far and I am your regular reader of your blog.
I follow your blog and I like your way of posting.
I am very much interested in adding http://juniusonukip.blogspot.com/ in my blog http://the-american-history.blogspot.com/.
I am pleased to see my blog in your blog list.
I would like to know whether you are interested in adding my blog in your blog list.
Hope to see a positive reply.
Thanks for visiting my blog as well !
Waiting for your reply friend !!!!!
Our pleasure!
ReplyDelete