Quote:
|
Originally Posted by harryaldridge
As i have said in previous postings regarding this declaration that UKIP signed, i do not see any problem. Quite the opposite.
It is no use refusing to recognise the authoirity of the EU, it DOES have authority even though we despise it. So when an opportunity arises which can advance the eurosceptic cause by supporting subsidiarity then i think UKIP has a responsibility to support it on the basis it reduces the power of the EU.
All i see from this declaration is that we have won more allies in the form of PIN and showed that UKIP will stannd up for Britain by supporting measures which increase subsidiarity.
I think the Times article is not helpful, but does at least make it clear why the declaration was supported - subsidiarity not offices!
If Roger Knapman had any sense at all he would keep quiet. He will have the opportunity to stand down as an MEP in 2009 and can then simmer quitely.
|
When the EU commission says that the principle of subsidiarity allows it to delegate some competance back to the nation states (not many such examples spring to mind!), then it is still retaining sovereignty over the issue.
The EU is an undemocratic supranational state, run for the benefit of its officials and a few member states which either set the agenda (e.g. France) or receive a shed load of money (e.g. Poland).
There is no compromise for the UK. If we want our parliamentary democracy to be real, then we have to withdraw from the EU and take back competance on that long list of key policy areas that we have given away (e.g. trade, environment, fishing, agriculture, taxation areas such as VAT, the social chapter etc).
What is the point of people voting for UKIP if your MEPs go native and try to improve the EU from within? What difference is there in these circumstances between a UKIP MEP and a Tory MEP? The latter is a Unionist who wants to improve the EU from within; looks like the former is too.
Andrew Constantine