The gross hypocrisy of UKIP’s cowardly leadership is well-known. They run a party that hints at action and imply a strong stance on politically sensitive issues, but when judged by the deeds of the party leadership and the small print of their proposals, it is clear that this is a party led by politically correct charlatans.
In recent months, the party’s leading MEPs have deliberately stayed away from the parliament chamber, or left early, rather than vote on politically correct measures, involving a range of Frankfurt School legislative instruments, so beloved of the EU Commission.
Instead of keeping their promise to “protect Britain’s interests”, leading UKIP MEPs have recently declined to vote on instruments providing positive discrimination in favour of Roma gypsies, yet more rights for the LGBT (Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender), expensive measures to provide women with rights exceeding those of men, and far-reaching politically correct denunciations of the internal affairs of Russia and Lithuania which are nothing to do with anyone except the citizens of those countries.
The red tape involved in translating the new PC proposals into law and the financial burden, which will fall upon small businesses and taxpayers, cannot be overestimated.
Clearly, those MEPs were faced with a dilemma. Should they vote against the Frankfurt School agenda, as their constituents and members would have expected? Of course they should, but to do so might have upset elements within the politically correct media and Establishment, not least their friends in the BBC. So they took the coward’s avenue and abstained, hoping their members would not notice.
It gets worse. UKIP’s Earl of Dartmouth MEP is responsible for an official parliamentary Report on Commission proposals to give trade preferences to Pakistan:
“On the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council introducing emergency autonomous trade preferences for Pakistan
(COM(2010)0552 – C70322/2010 – 2010/0289(COD))
Committee on International Trade
Presented after severe flooding in Pakistan last summer, the Commission’s proposal seeks to extend autonomous trade preferences in respect of 75 product lines of interest to Pakistan (mostly textile and clothing) in the form of exemption from custom duties. The measures, it is claimed, should be welcomed as a perfect example of the synergies that the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon has made possible. While the EU and its Member States have already generously provided Pakistan with humanitarian aid, the extension of trade preferences to this country is part of a larger package of measures that would address the medium and long-term economic consequences of the catastrophic floods.
The Earl of Dartmouth has moved a number of amendments (Dartmouth’s amended wording in bold type):
1 Amendment 3 recognises that the EU has pledged “in excess of EUR 415 million in emergency aid to Pakistan”.
2 Amendment 4 states: “It will be important to use all available means to support Pakistan's recovery from this emergency, including the proposed exceptional trade measures to boost Pakistan's exports in order to contribute to its future economic development while ensuring that consistency and coherence is maintained at all levels with a view to developing a sustainable long-term strategy.”
3 Amendment 5 states: “The severity of this natural disaster demands an immediate and substantial response, which would take into account the geostrategic importance of Pakistan’s partnership with the Union, mainly through Pakistan's key role in the fight against terrorism, while contributing to the overall development, security and stability of the region.”
4 Amendment 10 states: “Given the hardship being suffered by the Pakistani people due to the devastating floods it is therefore appropriate to extend exceptional autonomous trade preferences to Pakistan by suspending for a limited period of time all tariffs for certain products of export interest to Pakistan. The provision of these trade preferences should only cause limited adverse effects on the domestic market of the Union and should not affect negatively least developed Members of the World Trade Organisation (WTO).”
5 Amendment 19 states: “In order to ensure an immediate and sustainable impact on the economic recovery of Pakistan in the aftermath of the floods it is recommended to limit the duration of the trade preferences to one year from the entry into force of those measures.”
So, what are we to make of this new and sudden interest in the workings of the European Union on the part of UKIP’s MEPs? They won’t vote against politically correct measures that will damage Britain, but they are now willing to collaborate with the Brussels System. What on earth are they playing at?
UKIP’s Change of Position
First, we recall that our own MEPs recently signed a proposal to ask the EU Commission to act to ensure large lorries were equipped with a sufficiency of mirrors so as to protect cyclists from blind-spots. This proposal originated when a mother lost her daughter after such an accident.
Key campaigners for the commonsense, cheap, life-saving measure reported to our MEPs that UKIP’s MEPs had refused to sign up to the proposal. They told the child’s mother this was because they were, on principle, against participating in the legislative process and introducing new laws.
We also recall UKIP’s grandstanding when they were first returned to the EU Parliament, when they stated they would refuse to become a part of the EU Parliament’s process.
So why is one of their MEPs happily acting as the official Rapporteur on the proposal to give Pakistan even more money and favoured status, at the expense of British taxpayers and businesses?
We can only conclude that William Dartmouth has decided to go native and become a part of the EU’s legislative activities.
UKIP – Putting Pakistan First
Secondly, we note Dartmouth’s newfound care and concern for the Pakistani people: “The severity of this natural disaster demands an immediate and substantial response.” We do not deprecate his personal concerns, but, as a legislator, surely his first allegiance is towards his own kind – assuming he knows the difference – rather than to seek additional reasons to justify overseas aid and preferential trading assistance?
We are reminded of the severe floods in Cumberland in 2009 and the harsh winters that followed, in which – over two years – some 80,000 British pensioners have died of hypothermia. We do not recall Dartmouth expressing any concern, let alone seeking assistance, for the British victims of such tragedies. By contrast, he seems unusually interested to involve himself in a foreign tragedy, to the point of politically correct fawning.
Finally, we are bemused to see that Darmouth is keen to restrict trade preferences “to one year from the entry into force of those measures”. So, at the end of a year, the present tariff arrangements would – fortunately – return.
Perhaps he does not know that his leader, Farage, is on record as having condemned the British National Party for its policy of introducing selective tariffs on manufactured goods. Could it be that Dartmouth has seen the light, or has UKIP has pinched yet another policy from our locker?
We are, of course, delighted to provide the lead on this and other subjects. It’s worth remembering that until the rise of the British National Party, UKIP were not prepared to discuss immigration, while to discuss Islam in politically incorrect tones at their meetings was sufficient to merit suspension. As with the old Establishment parties, our presence has forced them to take up such issues at least in terms of rhetoric (although not, of course, in terms of action).
Without the British National Party, UKIP would find itself under the same scrutiny and prejudicial reporting from the BBC as we have to endure. Farage & Co know perfectly well that they are a “licensed opposition”, allowed to make populist noises so as to act as a safety valve and draw support away from the British National Party.
They also know that the licence has strict limits. They can make politically incorrect noises, but they mustn’t do anything to deliver on their implied promises.
They can criticise the EU, but mustn’t allow discussion of the real origins and methods of its nation-wrecking agenda in the unholy alliance between international capitalist companies such as Royal Dutch Shell and Frankfurt School Marxists, let alone expose the role of organisations such as the Bilderberg Group or Common Purpose.
They can even talk about immigration, as long as they mainly attack European Christian immigrants or Islam as a cultural problem, and avoid crossing the politically incorrect Rubicon by discussing the real crisis – the demographic colonisation of the nations of Europe by the Third World.
As for Dartmouth, readers might care to watch his Lordship in action on the following link:
Readers should then scroll along the right-hand list of speakers, where they will find the bad-tempered buffoon speaking at approximately 15.47 hrs.