EU President says world government is the ultimate goal

[-:Undertaker:-]

Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/telegraph-view/6618058/Well-be-watching-you-Mr-Van-Rompuy.html)

http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01526/eupresidency_1526855c.jpg



The newly elected first President of the European Union, Belgian Prime Minister Herman Van Rompuy, proclaimed in his acceptance speech that a new "global governance" is only way to solve the current crises facing the world:"We’re living through exceptionally difficult times – the financial crisis and its dramatic impact on employment and budgets, the climate crisis which threatens our very survival, a period of anxiety, uncertainty and lack of confidence.Yet these problems can be overcome through a joint effort between our countries. Two-thousand and nine is also the first year of global governance with the establishment of the G20 in the middle of the financial crisis. The climate conference in Copenhagen is another step toward the global management of our planet.". Mr Van Rompuy is also a Euro-Federalist who wants one nation and one flag for Europe, he has also called for a Euro Tax to be introduced while Europe has just left/is still in a recession with thousands of jobs being lost daily.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXWeOa-FuyM

Herman Van Rompuy was never elected as President of Europe, yet will have the power to introduce a 'Euro Tax' on the people of Europe whilst calling for national flags to be scrapped for for the European Union to offically become one nation under one flag. Meanwhile Baroness Ashton who was elected as European Foreign Minister, Nigel Farage has found out was a member of the Nuclear Disarmanment Campaign in the Cold War and was the finance secretary of that group, the group had links to the Communist Party of Great Britain which called for an end to western style capitalism and democracy. Ashton has never been elected to a public office in her life.

Nigel Farage (out-going UKIP leader) was told to 'tone down' when he stated this in the European Parliament, the video can be found here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QyOcuqIBtc4).

I wonder if the people of Europe and around the world want world government and for Mr Van Rompuy to push ahead with his world government? - didn't think so.

[Alkaz]

We need to get out. Every point Farage made was valid and he shut the president up rite at the end.
I think it could be ok for smaller countries who will benefit from the EU, I think us on the other hand will not. :@

[GommeInc]

You can't disagree with anything Farage said, so it will be interesting to see what the EU-huffers have to say on this :rolleyes:

[alexxxxx]

You can't disagree with anything Farage said, so it will be interesting to see what the EU-huffers have to say on this :rolleyes:

Well no you can't disagree with anything he says, but you can easily counter what he says.

He says that they are not elected. That is true, they are not directly elected by the people of europe. But the positions that the president and the high representative hold, they have no powers whatsoever. The 'president' of the european council is rightfully elected by the european council. He does not represent the people of europe, nor does he serve the people of europe. He serves the european council who serve the people of europe. This distinction is important. The european council is made up from the heads of each EU country. All the president can do is try and direct the comission to do what the council wants. He also reports to the parliament. He has no powers of veto. The low-key EU president was picked because, he has history of keeping belgium together (the french and flemish sections of belgium were very very split), he has somewhat re-united it. He is low-key, as to not overshadow the leaders of the bigger nation states, like GB, NS, AM, B and is quite clearly pro-integration, but has little to no world-recognition, yet it makes it easier for the EU to be represented. The 6-month rotating presidency idea is pretty archaeic as there are now 27 states.

The 'barrage of laws to be passed' is purely opinion and can only be proven over time.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Well no you can't disagree with anything he says, but you can easily counter what he says.

He says that they are not elected. That is true, they are not directly elected by the people of europe. But the positions that the president and the high representative hold, they have no powers whatsoever. The 'president' of the european council is rightfully elected by the european council. He does not represent the people of europe, nor does he serve the people of europe. He serves the european council who serve the people of europe. This distinction is important. The european council is made up from the heads of each EU country. All the president can do is try and direct the comission to do what the council wants. He also reports to the parliament. He has no powers of veto. The low-key EU president was picked because, he has history of keeping belgium together (the french and flemish sections of belgium were very very split), he has somewhat re-united it. He is low-key, as to not overshadow the leaders of the bigger nation states, like GB, NS, AM, B and is quite clearly pro-integration, but has little to no world-recognition, yet it makes it easier for the EU to be represented. The 6-month rotating presidency idea is pretty archaeic as there are now 27 states.

The 'barrage of laws to be passed' is purely opinion and can only be proven over time.

No one asked them to 'serve us' - and quite frankly, them idiots in Brussels forming some sort of superstate or new world order in my name is the upmost of hypocrisy. On the barrage of laws passed, its already been proven; 84% of laws come from the European Union. They have said it time and time before, the President and the Foreign Minister will represent the European Union on the world stage, no longer will it be the United States, Peoples Republic of China and the United Kingdom, it would be the USA, PROC and EU.

We do not want European Union and federalists like you, Herman Van Rompuy and Cathy Ashton need to accept that.

[GommeInc]

Well no you can't disagree with anything he says, but you can easily counter what he says.

He says that they are not elected. That is true, they are not directly elected by the people of europe. But the positions that the president and the high representative hold, they have no powers whatsoever. The 'president' of the european council is rightfully elected by the european council. He does not represent the people of europe, nor does he serve the people of europe. He serves the european council who serve the people of europe. This distinction is important. The european council is made up from the heads of each EU country. All the president can do is try and direct the comission to do what the council wants. He also reports to the parliament. He has no powers of veto. The low-key EU president was picked because, he has history of keeping belgium together (the french and flemish sections of belgium were very very split), he has somewhat re-united it. He is low-key, as to not overshadow the leaders of the bigger nation states, like GB, NS, AM, B and is quite clearly pro-integration, but has little to no world-recognition, yet it makes it easier for the EU to be represented. The 6-month rotating presidency idea is pretty archaeic as there are now 27 states.

The 'barrage of laws to be passed' is purely opinion and can only be proven over time.
So to sum it up, the President is pointless :/ If he doesn't serve the people directly, then he shouldn't be, nor should there ever be, a President of Europe - it's a pointless title. Besides, why do we need them? Europe has been doing quite well without all this control :/

[-:Undertaker:-]

So to sum it up, the President is pointless :/ If he doesn't serve the people directly, then he shouldn't be, nor should there ever be, a President of Europe. Besides, why do we need them? Europe has been doing quite well without all this control :/

I know for a fact the President gets paid more than Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and I have also heard that he gets paid more than Barack Obama - so either hes very important and powerful and we are being told outright lies, or hes not very powerful at all and is on a grossly bloated wage of our money which goes to show the greed and eliteism of the European Union.

..personally i'll go for the first one.

[GommeInc]

I know for a fact the President gets paid more than Gordon Brown, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom and I have also heard that he gets paid more than Barack Obama - so either hes very important and powerful and we are being told outright lies, or hes not very powerful at all and is on a grossly bloated wage of our money which goes to show the greed and eliteism of the European Union.

..personally i'll go for the first one.
Meh, it's going to be either/or :P Both stupid reasons to be honest, and it does suggest the EU is only out there to make money. It's strange, for a continent that was socialist for most of its life, it's worse tha America in the capitalism department :/

[Fez]

No thanks.

[hah]

i dont like the flag idea

[alexxxxx]

So to sum it up, the President is pointless :/ If he doesn't serve the people directly, then he shouldn't be, nor should there ever be, a President of Europe - it's a pointless title. Besides, why do we need them? Europe has been doing quite well without all this control :/
he's the president of the european council, not the president of europe.

and trust me undertaker, it's the second one. the european council will freak if he appears to be taking any sort of power. that's why they didn't want tony blair, because he's got a big ego, a big figure. they don't want him because ultimately they don't want someone who has enough influence to run the comission without their influence. it is a big job steering the executive of a bloc involving 27 member states.

[-:Undertaker:-]

he's the president of the european council, not the president of europe.

AKA he is head of the government which creates most of Europe's laws and regulations, so in essence he is the President of Europe. It is like me calling a builder a construction worker and saying they are different things.

[alexxxxx]

AKA he is head of the government which creates most of Europe's laws and regulations, so in essence he is the President of Europe. It is like me calling a builder a construction worker and saying they are different things.

no it's completely different. he isn't the president of the european comission, he isn't the head of the comission (who ultimately draft the laws) jose barasso is the president of the comission. he can try to influence them, yes, but he can't TELL them what to do, nor can he veto what they want to do. he is literally an admin man who china, india, usa or whoever can call if they have something that concerns the bloc. but him, like baroness ashton can't take any real action without the support of the council.

he is not president of the european parliament, who acts a bit like the speaker (he is on that video you posted earlier). he is voted in by the parliament.

there are infact 3 presidents of the EU who preside over different sections. this new presidential post has always existed, but has moved between countries every 6 months...

[-:Undertaker:-]

no it's completely different. he isn't the president of the european comission, he isn't the head of the comission (who ultimately draft the laws) jose barasso is the president of the comission. he can try to influence them, yes, but he can't TELL them what to do, nor can he veto what they want to do. he is literally an admin man who china, india, usa or whoever can call if they have something that concerns the bloc. but him, like baroness ashton can't take any real action without the support of the council.

he is not president of the european parliament, who acts a bit like the speaker (he is on that video you posted earlier). he is voted in by the parliament.

there are infact 3 presidents of the EU who preside over different sections. this new presidential post has always existed, but has moved between countries every 6 months...

Hang on, now you are saying it is the commission which essentially holds the power, whereas in the past you have made it out like the commission was a weak body with little power. You say to talk with China, India and the United States - nobody asked Rompuy, the commission, his advisers, Ashton or the thousands of eurocrats in Brussels to make decisions on their behalf.

As shown by the video, pro-EU MEPs such as that lady in the video are allowed to call Nigel Farage a monkey, yet he is told to 'tone down' when he mentions that Ashton has never been elected to public office in her entire life.

The whole thing stinks.

[alexxxxx]

Hang on, now you are saying it is the commission which essentially holds the power, whereas in the past you have made it out like the commission was a weak body with little power. You say to talk with China, India and the United States - nobody asked Rompuy, the commission, his advisers, Ashton or the thousands of eurocrats in Brussels to make decisions on their behalf.

As shown by the video, pro-EU MEPs such as that lady in the video are allowed to call Nigel Farage a monkey, yet he is told to 'tone down' when he mentions that Ashton has never been elected to public office in her entire life.

The whole thing stinks.

no, the comission does hold alot of power, but it has to be approved by the parliament beforehand. the reason that only it can start the process in making laws is that if the parliament was given power to make laws, it could ignore the laws setting out what it can and cannot legislate against. The comission's main job is to carry out the laws passed. It is often asked to by the parliament or the council to draft legislation, but it will only do this abiding by the laws of the treaties, that's why they have the power. These are then passed on down to either the council of the european union, the parliament or both.

It's quite complicated.

The EU is split into these sections:

The European Council - Brings together the heads of state of each european union state. they are accountable to their nation. They guide the european union in the way that the states want to go. This is where the new 'President of the European Council' will be. The president of the comission comes to the meetings to be told which way they want the european union to go.

The Council Of Ministers - Legislative body that passes or denies new laws as drafted by the comission. One member in this house per member state. The council of ministers is usually made up with just people who are concerned with the matter in hand (for example agriculture). In some areas they don't need the permission of the parliament to pass some laws. This presidency used to be the same as the one as in the European Council, but now is split and has a rotating presidency from national governments who sets the agenda.

The European Comission - Carries out the day-to-day running. Makes sure the laws as passed are abided by. Drafts laws according to what's been agreen by the european council and what's in the treaties and european law. They have their own president who goes to the European Council and the Parliament.

The Parliament - Discusses european union matters, new bills, accepts or denies the new budgets, votes in the comission, votes on bills. This has an admistritative president also.

Over complicated, very. Too complicated, yes. Some waste, yes.

[-:Undertaker:-]

no, the comission does hold alot of power, but it has to be approved by the parliament beforehand. the reason that only it can start the process in making laws is that if the parliament was given power to make laws, it could ignore the laws setting out what it can and cannot legislate against. The comission's main job is to carry out the laws passed. It is often asked to by the parliament or the council to draft legislation, but it will only do this abiding by the laws of the treaties, that's why they have the power. These are then passed on down to either the council of the european union, the parliament or both.

It's quite complicated.

The EU is split into these sections:

The European Council - Brings together the heads of state of each european union state. they are accountable to their nation. They guide the european union in the way that the states want to go. This is where the new 'President of the European Council' will be. The president of the comission comes to the meetings to be told which way they want the european union to go.

The Council Of Ministers - Legislative body that passes or denies new laws as drafted by the comission. One member in this house per member state. The council of ministers is usually made up with just people who are concerned with the matter in hand (for example agriculture). In some areas they don't need the permission of the parliament to pass some laws. This presidency used to be the same as the one as in the European Council, but now is split and has a rotating presidency from national governments who sets the agenda.

The European Comission - Carries out the day-to-day running. Makes sure the laws as passed are abided by. Drafts laws according to what's been agreen by the european council and what's in the treaties and european law. They have their own president who goes to the European Council and the Parliament.

The Parliament - Discusses european union matters, new bills, accepts or denies the new budgets, votes in the comission, votes on bills. This has an admistritative president also.

Over complicated, very. Too complicated, yes. Some waste, yes.

Actually the Comission creates the laws and the ECJ from what I have read, is the body which enforces them on national governments, business and people. Some waste? - gross underestimate, the European Union audits haven't been checked for more than a decade with billions gone missing, senior members have been caught holidaying with owners of large corporations shortly before a bill is passed which benefits that company.

..and who asked you alex and the European Union itself to create a European Union with its own flag, budgets, laws, regulations? - nobody did.

[pg.security]

ha ha world government imagine that we to busy killing each other to make up and unite as one

[alexxxxx]

Actually the Comission creates the laws and the ECJ from what I have read, is the body which enforces them on national governments, business and people. Some waste? - gross underestimate, the European Union audits haven't been checked for more than a decade with billions gone missing, senior members have been caught holidaying with owners of large corporations shortly before a bill is passed which benefits that company.

..and who asked you alex and the European Union itself to create a European Union with its own flag, budgets, laws, regulations? - nobody did.

nobody asked me. i'm 17. the european union did not create itself. the collective will of democratically elected governments formed the different sections and its evolution and devopment has been under control by them.

the comission has a monopoly on starting the legislative process, but they cannot create laws on their own, they have to be passed by the c.o.m. and the parliament. or one or the other depending on what it concerns. the comission also is the body that makes sure companies/whoever are abiding by the laws and implements the decisions. But the comission on it's own can't draft and pass laws. the european court of justice is a court, which is the highest court for european union law, but the comission goes and investigates companies and the like who are in breech of competition law.

[FlyingJesus]

This is gonna be terrible for football

[-:Undertaker:-]

nobody asked me. i'm 17. the european union did not create itself. the collective will of democratically elected governments formed the different sections and its evolution and devopment has been under control by them.

the comission has a monopoly on starting the legislative process, but they cannot create laws on their own, they have to be passed by the c.o.m. and the parliament. or one or the other depending on what it concerns. the comission also is the body that makes sure companies/whoever are abiding by the laws and implements the decisions. But the comission on it's own can't draft and pass laws. the european court of justice is a court, which is the highest court for european union law, but the comission goes and investigates companies and the like who are in breech of competition law.

No do not give me the democratically elected government issue, no main party in the United Kingdom ever pledged to sign up to the European Union, and when a government was elected on a manifesto promise to hold a referendum on EU reform, it then declined to hold a referendum.

The commission is the government, the ECJ is the government's legal side.

[alexxxxx]

No do not give me the democratically elected government issue, no main party in the United Kingdom ever pledged to sign up to the European Union, and when a government was elected on a manifesto promise to hold a referendum on EU reform, it then declined to hold a referendum.

The commission is the government, the ECJ is the government's legal side.
the comission is the executive and has a monopoly on legislative initiation. the court is the judiciary.

[-:Undertaker:-]

the comission is the executive and has a monopoly on legislative initiation. the court is the judiciary.

AKA the government, unelected. On the issue of the parliament itself,
Green Party leader Ms Lucas, also an MEP, told BBC1's Andrew Marr show: 'He won't get the right to speak. The Parliament sadly doesn't even get the right to really influence the decisions at all. 'So this idea that somehow Nick Griffin is going to have any real influence on what happens in Copenhagen is a myth.' - there we go, right out of the mouth of a climate change nutter who would surely love whats going on in Copenhagen right now.


An unelected commission that makes rules for us all to abide by and a ECJ which enforces those rules on business, government and people costing tens of billions each year.

[alexxxxx]

AKA the government, unelected. On the issue of the parliament itself,
Green Party leader Ms Lucas, also an MEP, told BBC1's Andrew Marr show: 'He won't get the right to speak. The Parliament sadly doesn't even get the right to really influence the decisions at all. 'So this idea that somehow Nick Griffin is going to have any real influence on what happens in Copenhagen is a myth.' - there we go, right out of the mouth of a climate change nutter who would surely love whats going on in Copenhagen right now.

Our cabinet, roughly the same as the comission is unlected. The green party are angry because they won't get what they want out of copenhagen. Nothing will come out of it because everyone is too concentrated on the economy, noone will have an effect.


An unelected commission that makes rules for us all to abide by and a ECJ which enforces those rules on business, government and people costing tens of billions each year.
The comission should have this sole power because it is their responsibility to to enforce it. It's their responsibility to check to uphold the treaties. If a law breaks a treaty but is made and passed in the parliament, there would be a crisis. That's why it has to solely started by the comission in this case. The comission has to prove to the ECJ that a business breaks a law, the ECJ is just a court.

Well the laws have to pass in the council and the parliament before they take effect, so really, if it's not wanted it shouldn't pass. The parliament and CoM can make formal requests for legislation (and so can a petition of 1 000 000 EU citizens).

[-:Undertaker:-]

Our cabinet, roughly the same as the comission is unlected. The green party are angry because they won't get what they want out of copenhagen. Nothing will come out of it because everyone is too concentrated on the economy, noone will have an effect.The people who make up a cabinent are elected, we do not have an election which says 'do you want a UKIP cabinet/Labour cabinet/Portugese Socialist cabinet - unelected. The Green Party have just told the truth, the parliament has no power what so ever.


The comission should have this sole power because it is their responsibility to to enforce it. It's their responsibility to check to uphold the treaties. If a law breaks a treaty but is made and passed in the parliament, there would be a crisis. That's why it has to solely started by the comission in this case. The comission has to prove to the ECJ that a business breaks a law, the ECJ is just a court.No, they should not have any powers because nobody asked for a European Union.


Well the laws have to pass in the council and the parliament before they take effect, so really, if it's not wanted it shouldn't pass. The parliament and CoM can make formal requests for legislation (and so can a petition of 1 000 000 EU citizens).There is no such thing as a EU citizen, well not a true one anyway; theres a French citizen, a British citizen - do you not realise nobody was ever asked for this? - do you not think its a disgrace that democracy is being trampled on all so the fat cats in Brussels can create their new superstate and continue their new world order project. Its not only happening in Europe, its happening in South America, Africa and even Asia to a lesser extent.

The EU may stamp 'EU citizen' on all our passports, but who the hell asked for it?

[alexxxxx]

The people who make up a cabinent are elected, we do not have an election which says 'do you want a UKIP cabinet/Labour cabinet/Portugese Socialist cabinet - unelected. The Green Party have just told the truth, the parliament has no power what so ever.
No, they should not have any powers because nobody asked for a European Union.

Mandelson is not elected, yet he is in the cabinet. We don't get to decide who is in the cabinet, we don't get to decide who's the prime minister, we don't get to decide who sits in the comission and we don't get to decide who sits in the UN. The UN makes laws, should we have a refferendum on that?

The Parliament quite clearly has powers.


There is no such thing as a EU citizen, well not a true one anyway; theres a French citizen, a British citizen - do you not realise nobody was ever asked for this? - do you not think its a disgrace that democracy is being trampled on all so the fat cats in Brussels can create their new superstate and continue their new world order project. Its not only happening in Europe, its happening in South America, Africa and even Asia to a lesser extent.

The EU may stamp 'EU citizen' on all our passports, but who the hell asked for it?You have completely divelged off the point. You are a UK national yes and by proxy you are an EU national as the UK is in the EU. I don't believe you are an 'EU national,' rather, your nationality allows you to reside wherever you like in the EU. The 'EUROPEAN UNION' on the top of your passport denotes that your country is in the EU (note that Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernesy, UK Overseas, Fawkland Isands, the like) do not include this as they are not in the EU. This is to make the jobs of those who work at borders easier. There is no trampling on democracy, you are deluded and are just upset that UKIP are a joke and incapable of winning a seat in the commons.

There is no 'EU Citizen' stamp in your passport, i guess you don't have one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Mandelson is not elected, yet he is in the cabinet. We don't get to decide who is in the cabinet, we don't get to decide who's the prime minister, we don't get to decide who sits in the comission and we don't get to decide who sits in the UN. The UN makes laws, should we have a refferendum on that?

Mandelson should never of been in the European Union.
Mandelson should not be in government.
Mandelson should be investigated for corruption (not the first time either).


The Parliament quite clearly has powers.
You have completely divelged off the point. You are a UK national yes and by proxy you are an EU national as the UK is in the EU. I don't believe you are an 'EU national,' rather, your nationality allows you to reside wherever you like in the EU. The 'EUROPEAN UNION' on the top of your passport denotes that your country is in the EU (note that Isle of Man, Jersey, Guernesy, UK Overseas, Fawkland Isands, the like) do not include this as they are not in the EU. This is to make the jobs of those who work at borders easier. There is no trampling on democracy, you are deluded and are just upset that UKIP are a joke and incapable of winning a seat in the commons.

Why are UKIP a joke? - are they also racists, xenophobes, homophobes and so on? - have you actually realised that UKIP more so, but also the BNP and others represent both the left and right of voters more than any of the main partys do? - nobody trusts, wants or believes the main parties anymore. None of the main parties ever asked us if we wanted to be part of the European Union.

If we had a fair voting system, and if we'd of had a General Election in the summer, right now the Conservatives would be in government with UKIP as the opposition. Labour and the Liberal Democrats would be consigned to the history bin.

[alexxxxx]

Mandelson should never of been in the European Union.
Mandelson should not be in government.
Mandelson should be investigated for corruption (not the first time either).


OK, but that doesn't go as far as pointing out what else I've written.


Why are UKIP a joke? - are they also racists, xenophobes, homophobes and so on? - have you actually realised that UKIP more so, but also the BNP and others represent both the left and right of voters more than any of the main partys do? - nobody trusts, wants or believes the main parties anymore. None of the main parties ever asked us if we wanted to be part of the European Union.
UKIP are a fragile mess. The new leader has NEVER been elected into office, just like how he claims the EU is running, at least Nick Griffin, Brown, Clegg and Cameron have all been elected. UKIP aren't exactly setting a great example by choosing someone who's also claimed over £100 000 (one hundred thousand pounds) on his 'second' house (WORTH £3.7MILLION) when in his business documents he has denoted that's his primary residence. Also claimes £40000 on travel expenses. THAT'S WHY UKIP ARE A BLEEDING JOKE. This isn't to mention that UKIP MEP has been done for fiddling with euro-expenses AND 2 have been jailed for fraud. And it hasn't even got that many seats compared with everyone else. UKIP = A JOKE.


If we had a fair voting system, and if we'd of had a General Election in the summer, right now the Conservatives would be in government with UKIP as the opposition. Labour and the Liberal Democrats would be consigned to the history bin.Dream on!

[-:Undertaker:-]

UKIP are a fragile mess. The new leader has NEVER been elected into office, just like how he claims the EU is running, at least Nick Griffin, Brown, Clegg and Cameron have all been elected. UKIP do not run the lives of 500+ million people, Pearson actually favours the House of Lords to be reformed or even abolished. If you are going to look at it like that, Brown was never elected as Labour Leader or directly elected as Prime Minister - Lord Pearson was elected by a majority of UKIPs' members.

Lord Pearson is elected.


UKIP aren't exactly setting a great example by choosing someone who's also claimed over £100 000 (one hundred thousand pounds) on his 'second' house (WORTH £3.7MILLION) when in his business documents he has denoted that's his primary residence. Also claimes £40000 on travel expenses. THAT'S WHY UKIP ARE A BLEEDING JOKE. This isn't to mention that UKIP MEP has been done for fiddling with euro-expenses AND 2 have been jailed for fraud. And it hasn't even got that many seats compared with everyone else. UKIP = A JOKE.
Dream on!Farage has to travel to and from Brussels, thats why his expenses are so high. This, topped with the fact the European Union provides MEPs with funding for staff means that the cost of his office will be high, he has never been proven of doing anything wrong and he hasn't done anything wrong. If you compare this with the Lib/Lab/Con elite, those members, even those who were close to parliament has deliberatly fiddled expenses to amounts that were never needed. The office that Farage runs (that he wants abolished) costs money because of the European Union - now what would I rather have? - somebody who is actually defending British rights and sovereignty in the EU spending our money or somebody (Labour/Liberal Democrats & Conservatives) who is willingly signing away our sovereign powers to the unelected European Union spending our money?

On the fraud, yes they should be jailed. What did UKIP do? - they threw them out of the party straight away.

What did Lab/Lib/Con do? - let them all keep their cushy jobs.

[alexxxxx]

UKIP do not run the lives of 500+ million people, Pearson actually favours the House of Lords to be reformed or even abolished. If you are going to look at it like that, Brown was never elected as Labour Leader or directly elected as Prime Minister - Lord Pearson was elected by a majority of UKIPs' members.

Lord Pearson is elected.

Just like how the european council president is elected, elected by its members... not that is anyway related to my point. My point was that the new head of UKIP has not been elected into any office.


Farage has to travel to and from Brussels, thats why his expenses are so high. This, topped with the fact the European Union provides MEPs with funding for staff means that the cost of his office will be high, he has never been proven of doing anything wrong and he hasn't done anything wrong. If you compare this with the Lib/Lab/Con elite, those members, even those who were close to parliament has deliberatly fiddled expenses to amounts that were never needed. The office that Farage runs (that he wants abolished) costs money because of the European Union - now what would I rather have? - somebody who is actually defending British rights and sovereignty in the EU spending our money or somebody (Labour/Liberal Democrats & Conservatives) who is willingly signing away our sovereign powers to the unelected European Union spending our money?

On the fraud, yes they should be jailed. What did UKIP do? - they threw them out of the party straight away.

What did Lab/Lib/Con do? - let them all keep their cushy jobs.
I'm not talking about Farage. Farage is entitled to his expenses and his staff. I'm talking about the new president of UKIP: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6686068/UKIP-leader-Lord-Pearson-claimed-100000-allowances-for-3.7m-London-home.html (yes even the TELEGRAPH reported this).

The Fraud case is completley different to the MPs expenses scandle. This was where (if i remember correctly), these people said they were paying staff when infact it was going directly into their pockets. Clear cut thievery.

UKIP ARE A JOKE.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Just like how the european council president is elected, elected by its members... not that is anyway related to my point. My point was that the new head of UKIP has not been elected into any office.The new head of UKIP does not rule the lives of 500 million people now, does he?


I'm not talking about Farage. Farage is entitled to his expenses and his staff. I'm talking about the new president of UKIP: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/mps-expenses/6686068/UKIP-leader-Lord-Pearson-claimed-100000-allowances-for-3.7m-London-home.html (yes even the TELEGRAPH reported this).

The Fraud case is completley different to the MPs expenses scandle. This was where (if i remember correctly), these people said they were paying staff when infact it was going directly into their pockets. Clear cut thievery.

UKIP ARE A JOKE.According to this, Pearson uses both houses equally. However I hope he's being investigated and if anything is found, he like all the others should all be thrown out of their jobs straight away and criminal trials brought if needed.

..why are a party which represent a lot of things the majority want, a joke?

I would argue it is your opinion on the European Union which is the joke, because you claim to support democracy I assume, yet refuse to support thre case for a referendum and we later found out you are a european federalist. What gives you and other europhiles the right to impose a superstate on this country?

[Hitman]

Illuminati, anyone?

[alexxxxx]

The new head of UKIP does not rule the lives of 500 million people now, does he?

The Council President has no power over 500 million people, yet i haven't seen anything to suggest that Pearson is to step down from the house of lords (if that's possible being a life-peer) and get elected into the commons (or even into the european parliament) so he has some sort of mandate from the country.



According to this, Pearson uses both houses equally. However I hope he's being investigated and if anything is found, he like all the others should all be thrown out of their jobs straight away and criminal trials brought if needed.
I've seen other sources suggesting that in a business (possibly tax) document he made it clear that his main residence was in London.

EDIT: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/lord-of-misrule-new-ukip-leaders-honeymoon-ended-as-soon-it-had-begun-1833152.html

Fiddling with the tax system..



..why are a party which represent a lot of things the majority want, a joke?
Because of the way it is run.



I would argue it is your opinion on the European Union which is the joke, because you claim to support democracy I assume, yet refuse to support thre case for a referendum and we later found out you are a european federalist. What gives you and other europhiles the right to impose a superstate on this country?Then everyone should vote for UKIP if they represent a lot of things the majority want! That's democracy also. Going by you, we'll be out of the european union by this time next year.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The Council President has no power over 500 million people, yet i haven't seen anything to suggest that Pearson is to step down from the house of lords (if that's possible being a life-peer) and get elected into the commons (or even into the european parliament) so he has some sort of mandate from the country.

The President does have the power over 500 million people, him and his team and the EU in general already decide how 84% of our laws are made and what they are, this President, as Sarkozy and Merkel have said before - will put the EU on the world stage with the USA, PROC and others.


I've seen other sources suggesting that in a business (possibly tax) document he made it clear that his main residence was in London.

That needs to be proven then, and if it is then criminal charges should potentially be brought against him and any other MP, Lord or MEP who has fiddled expenses as its not acceptable. In the United Kingdom we have a thing called innocent until proven guilty, which apparently differs from Europe according to a poster on here not long ago.


Because of the way it is run.

It is run fine, it has gone from being a small party to a party which came second on the European Parliamentary Elections, not to mention its achieving its aim which is to bring the EU issue to the front of politics whereas the main parties would rather ignore it.


Then everyone should vote for UKIP if they represent a lot of things the majority want! That's democracy also. Going by you, we'll be out of the european union by this time next year.

If we had a PR system which is a fair electoral system, UKIP would be in opposition - fact. As UKIP came 2nd in the Euro Elections, so maybe Europhiles like yourself should now listen to the people over the issue of the European Union?

[alexxxxx]

The President does have the power over 500 million people, him and his team and the EU in general already decide how 84% of our laws are made and what they are, this President, as Sarkozy and Merkel have said before - will put the EU on the world stage with the USA, PROC and others.

wrong wrong wrong wrong



That needs to be proven then, and if it is then criminal charges should potentially be brought against him and any other MP, Lord or MEP who has fiddled expenses as its not acceptable. In the United Kingdom we have a thing called innocent until proven guilty, which apparently differs from Europe according to a poster on here not long ago.
What he's done is not illegal, it's just incredibly unethical and somewhat ironic that an unelected official can claim so much off the state, something he himself compains about in the EU itself.



If we had a PR system which is a fair electoral system, UKIP would be in opposition - fact. As UKIP came 2nd in the Euro Elections, so maybe Europhiles like yourself should now listen to the people over the issue of the European Union?UKIP may have come second, but Conservative + Labour + Lib Dem + Green> UKIP, all pro-eu parties.

[-:Undertaker:-]

wrong wrong wrong wrong

How is it wrong? - top EU officals, the French President and the German Chancellor (big europhiles) have all said it. Either the EU itself is telling lies or you are telling lies.


What he's done is not illegal, it's just incredibly unethical and somewhat ironic that an unelected official can claim so much off the state, something he himself compains about in the EU itself.

It is not proven, as I said before; if he was found out to be in the wrong then he should be tried.


UKIP may have come second, but Conservative + Labour + Lib Dem + Green> UKIP, all pro-eu parties.

Actually.

UKIP - anti-EU.
Conservatives - split, although main party more eurosceptic.
BNP - anti-EU.
Labour - pro-EU.
Liberal Democrats - pro-EU.

..considering UKIP came second above the ruling pro-EU Labour Party, I would say that shows something when it comes to public opinion on the European Union. The fact that you yourself do not support a referendum of any sort on the European Union shows that you yourself also realise that if the British people were given a vote on it, we would leave the EU.

[alexxxxx]

How is it wrong? - top EU officals, the French President and the German Chancellor (big europhiles) have all said it. Either the EU itself is telling lies or you are telling lies.

THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAS NO FORMAL POWER OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE EU. FACT.

Is pearson going to step down from the house of lords?


It is not proven, as I said before; if he was found out to be in the wrong then he should be tried.
He's done nothing illegal, just unethical. Like I said.


Actually.

UKIP - anti-EU.
Conservatives - split, although main party more eurosceptic.
BNP - anti-EU.
Labour - pro-EU.
Liberal Democrats - pro-EU.

..considering UKIP came second above the ruling pro-EU Labour Party, I would say that shows something when it comes to public opinion on the European Union. The fact that you yourself do not support a referendum of any sort on the European Union shows that you yourself also realise that if the British people were given a vote on it, we would leave the EU.Well done. And the votes for UKIP and BNP are less than Labour + Lib Dem + Conservative (who pretend to be anti-eu, but whilst watching the shadow foreign minister (or it might have been europe) he did not seem as eurosceptic as they claim, more to do with becoming more pro-active and trying to make them do what we want, which we should be doing anyway). That's how PR works which you claim is a 'fairer' system.

[-:Undertaker:-]

THE COUNCIL PRESIDENT HAS NO FORMAL POWER OVER THE PEOPLE OF THE EU. FACT.

..then why have the EU, French President and German Chancellor all said that the EU President will have a powerful new role?


Is pearson going to step down from the house of lords?

Lord Pearson isn't stepping down from the House of Lords - and why should he? - just like UKIP itself fights European Elections, to make a difference.


He's done nothing illegal, just unethical. Like I said.

If you are taking taxpayer money by bending the rules then that is stealing.



Well done. And the votes for UKIP and BNP are less than Labour + Lib Dem + Conservative (who pretend to be anti-eu, but whilst watching the shadow foreign minister (or it might have been europe) he did not seem as eurosceptic as they claim, more to do with becoming more pro-active and trying to make them do what we want, which we should be doing anyway).

The Conservative Party is anti-EU, however the top of the party for some reason chooses to ignore the public and the party over the issue of Europe. Europe brought down Thatcher and until it is sorted, it could well cost Cameron an election and if it does, good.

UKIP got more than any pro-EU party, any party which supports the federalisation of Europe and the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty. Maybe you would like to re-consider whether or not we should have a referendum on Lisbon, because a small anti-EU party and a anti-Lisbon party have just beaten all others opponents.


That's how PR works which you claim is a 'fairer' system.

It is a fairer system, if you give the people a direct vote on something like the Lisbon Treaty - the outcome is what the people want. This is unlike a parliamentary system like we have now, where the 3 maim parties maintain a monopoly on power and once they are voted in can easily choose to backtrack on their promises (Labour 2005 manifesto pledge on Lisbon).

You do not support direct democracy because you know the outcomes would be the opposite of your own socialist and federalist views.

[alexxxxx]

..then why have the EU, French President and German Chancellor all said that the EU President will have a powerful new role?

Because they need to show that the post is worth having (which it is). Read the damn treaty and find out yourself. I have read that section!



Lord Pearson isn't stepping down from the House of Lords - and why should he? - just like UKIP itself fights European Elections, to make a difference.

Because he is the leader of a party going into a general election. He should be elected just like the rest of his wannabe MPs. He will have no mandate to be prime minister if by some fluke, UKIP win.



If you are taking taxpayer money by bending the rules then that is stealing.

Then he stole in my eyes.



The Conservative Party is anti-EU, however the top of the party for some reason chooses to ignore the public and the party over the issue of Europe. Europe brought down Thatcher and until it is sorted, it could well cost Cameron an election and if it does, good.

The tories are clearly cautious about the EU, which they have every right to be, but they are not in any way anti-eu. They are for big business, freemarkets and the like, exactly what the EU stands for. They might dislike some of the things they do, but they are not anti-eu.


UKIP got more than any pro-EU party, any party which supports the federalisation of Europe and the introduction of the Lisbon Treaty. Maybe you would like to re-consider whether or not we should have a referendum on Lisbon, because a small anti-EU party and a anti-Lisbon party have just beaten all others opponents.

It is a fairer system, if you give the people a direct vote on something like the Lisbon Treaty - the outcome is what the people want. This is unlike a parliamentary system like we have now, where the 3 maim parties maintain a monopoly on power and once they are voted in can easily choose to backtrack on their promises (Labour 2005 manifesto pledge on Lisbon).

You do not support direct democracy because you know the outcomes would be the opposite of your own socialist and federalist views.
You obviously fail to understand what PR is. Almost every european country has PR apart from us.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Because they need to show that the post is worth having (which it is). Read the damn treaty and find out yourself. I have read that section!

The treaty cannot be read, to fully read the Lisbon Treaty you would have to have next to you all the existing treaties and legislation, and sift through it one by one as its not a treaty, its just a list of amendments to existing regulations which now allow those areas to grow without another treaty being made.


Because he is the leader of a party going into a general election. He should be elected just like the rest of his wannabe MPs. He will have no mandate to be prime minister if by some fluke, UKIP win.

He does not have any power over anybodys lives as UKIP leader, if UKIP were to win by a fluke (although they'd be in opposition if we had a fair voting system) then he would obviously step down, as it just wouldn't be acceptable or accepted that he could possibly stay as leader. The rumours are anyway that Pearson is merely a caretaker leader while Farage fights Bercows seat.


Then he stole in my eyes.

..then like the rest of them, they all need to be investigated by the police and whatever action taken that fits the crime.


The tories are clearly cautious about the EU, which they have every right to be, but they are not in any way anti-eu. They are for big business, freemarkets and the like, exactly what the EU stands for. They might dislike some of the things they do, but they are not anti-eu.

When you say a Tory, do you mean Michael Heseltine, Kenneth Clarke and David Cameron? - they are not Conservatives i'm afraid but the sad thing is that Cameron only got his job because he was seen as Tony Two. The Conservative Party as a whole is anti-EU.


You obviously fail to understand what PR is. Almost every european country has PR apart from us.

I understand fully well what PR is, and how direct democracy (true democracy) works. Has it not occured to you (a federalist and a socialist) that we have never been asked to be part of this European Union? - even the French President admitted that if his country were to be given a referendum on Europe or the Lisbon Treaty it would be dead as soon as them poll results came through.

A disgrace to democracy by the left wing facists who have found another way to control our lives via the European Union.

As Gorbachev asked, why are we re-creating the Soviet Union in western Europe???? :S

[Agnostic Bear]

Hey undertaker if you care so much why not stop ranting about it and go do something?

[Sammeth.]

I personally can't wait till we have a world government.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Hey undertaker if you care so much why not stop ranting about it and go do something?

Yes you are totally right, i'll just go to Brussels and sign a pullout clause for the UK, travel to Zimbabwe and oust Zanu-PF and President Mugabe and on my return persuade the Chinese leadership to dissolve the communist party.

[Agnostic Bear]

Yes you are totally right, i'll just go to Brussels and sign a pullout clause for the UK, travel to Zimbabwe and oust Zanu-PF and President Mugabe and on my return persuade the Chinese leadership to dissolve the communist party.

If you can't do anything about it, stop complaining about it and do something else with your time.

[FlyingJesus]

I'm neither pro- nor anti-Europe, but frankly I haven't noticed myself being tyrannised by an evil Belgian overlord yet. I wholly believe someone that ugly should never be allowed out of the house let alone onto TV but other than that I don't yet have anything against Rumpty Dumpty. Of course I'm likely to disagree with plenty of EU rulings, but I disagree with a lot of UK bills too, so I'll wait until he actually does something before I decide what I think of him.

As for PR being a good system, lol@any politics student believing that

[-:Undertaker:-]

If you can't do anything about it, stop complaining about it and do something else with your time.

Yes sir.


I'm neither pro- nor anti-Europe, but frankly I haven't noticed myself being tyrannised by an evil Belgian overlord yet. I wholly believe someone that ugly should never be allowed out of the house let alone onto TV but other than that I don't yet have anything against Rumpty Dumpty. Of course I'm likely to disagree with plenty of EU rulings, but I disagree with a lot of UK bills too, so I'll wait until he actually does something before I decide what I think of him.

As for PR being a good system, lol@any politics student believing that

PR has flaws yeah, a better system would be referendums on important issues being legally required, but something needs to change because this government, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats don't represent the view of the majority.

[MrPinkPanther]

this government, the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats don't represent the view of the majority.

I'm pretty sure they do, hence they were elected.

If we had had an election during the Summer with a proportional voting system then UKIP would NOT be in opposition and Labour and Libs would not be consigned to the "History bin". Labour would be in opposition with the Liberal Democrats in third placed just like ALL of the opinion polls showed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

I'm pretty sure they do, hence they were elected.

If we had had an election during the Summer with a proportional voting system then UKIP would NOT be in opposition and Labour and Libs would not be consigned to the "History bin". Labour would be in opposition with the Liberal Democrats in third placed just like ALL of the opinion polls showed.

UKIP would be in opposition, they polled second to the Conservatives. On the majority view, why do none of the main parties want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty?, why do none of the main parties want to leave the European Union?, why do none of the main parties ever make any attempts to stop immigration?, why do none of the main parties wish to bring back the death penalty? (or at least have a referendum on it)

WHY do none of the main parties represent anything but eachother? - because we are stuck in a 3 party system, that ment if PR was introduced, UKIP, the Green Party and the BNP would have some real weight behind them, especially UKIP as right now it would of been Farage V Cameron at the dispatch box.

[FlyingJesus]

Yeah I hear minority governments are really good and benefit the people loads.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Yeah I hear minority governments are really good and benefit the people loads.

The government should lose powers via the idea of more referendums, meaning government would become less important. Whips also need to be abolished and MP's need to vote based on what their consituency wants and not what their party wants. The lines need to be re-drawn as Scotland and Wales are over-represented based on numbers compared to English seats.

The whole system is corrupted and unjust, so thats exactly why I am for Proportional Representation. PR has its problems, but a lot of other nations around the world use that system and I think Switzerland does aswell, and thats one of the most built up and independant states in the world.

Democracy should mirror what the people want, not what the ruling elite want.