UKIP leader Nigel Farage has worst voting record of any active MEP in European Parliament EXCLUSIVE analysis of the MEP voting records places Farage 745th out of 746 MEPs on the register - with only Brian Crowley, a MEP in Ireland who has NEVER voted, below him.
Nigel Farage only turned up to 40.7 per cent of all possible roll-call votes between July 2014 and May 2016
But exclusive analysis of the MEP voting records shows that Mr Farage only turned up to 40.7 per cent of all possible roll-call votes between July 2014 and May 2016. This places him 745th out of 746 MEPs from across the different EU countries on the register. The 746th is Brian Crowley, a MEP in Ireland who has never voted, according to the register. A fall from a building left Mr Crowley paralysed from the waist down when he was 16 years old. A spokesperson told the Irish Times in December 2014 that he had been in hospital for several months.
It's right that he is on the right he's in the picture for reason he supports Brexit.
Tom
It has my tag on so must be in the right thread, the one with the missing OP. I'm not a Fan of Mr Rees Mogg given he put his beloved Party ahead of democracy and the Nation by changing his vote, thus keeping May in Office, so probably (why ) he's not in the Brexit Party. The EU is riddled with tax avoidance and other bad things, why Nigel having seen it all from the inside warned us. This Nation agreed and Brexit was born, the baby is three years old now, not just walking & talking but running, they can't say we didn't know what we were voting for, yet again. I have faith the British public will see through all the garbage and make the right decision when voting Thursday.
Mr Chilaka does support Brexit. But he is not a Candidate for the Brexit Party. He seems to spend most of his political time being an "influencer" for Turning Point UK and the Conservative party. So quite why he is on the leaflet as a "New Brexit Party Candidate" is ridiculous. Really not that tough to remember who you want people to vote for.
As is claiming that this is the "Wales" edition when absolutely none of the Candidates is standing in Wales. Every edition is identical except for claiming it is the "Wales" , East" edition etc.
Meanwhile (I am going to keep asking this).
"How will voting for the Brexit Party speed up us leaving the European Union".
It is a one-issue Party. It is currently very popular. So could someone, anyone, explain how voting for them is going to help speed up us leaving?
Because people appear to be voting for a one-issue Party with no mandate to deliver anything. Precisely because the UK Parliament holds the power. Already. Not Europe.
Channel 4 News Confirms It Has Been Banned From Brexit Party Events
Channel 4 news has been banned from events held by Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, it has been confirmed. The six-week ban was reportedly triggered after the broadcaster aired an investigation into Farage last week, revealing he had been bankrolled by Leave.EU co-founder Aaron Banks to the tune of £450,000.
More Channel 4 source says the broadcaster has been blacklisted from Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party events since the investigation aired into Arron Banks and Farage’s finances last Thursday, confirming @paulwaugh’s previous tweet.
‘Clean Brexit’ sounds so simple, doesn’t it? Trouble is, it doesn’t exist The Brexit party has a new name for no deal. But the case for it still relies on dubious assumptions and flawed analysis
Richard Tice, chairman of the Brexit party, was banging the no-deal drum on the Today programme earlier this week, arguing that a “clean Brexit” (sounds appealing, doesn’t it?) would work out just fine because of the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) treaty.
This analysis is fatally flawed. It rests on assumptions – dubious, at best –that allow the impact of a so-called clean Brexit to be fundamentally misrepresented. Here’s why.
By definition, “no deal” means the UK leaves the EU without signing the article 50 withdrawal agreement (Theresa May’s deal). Unlike a business deal, it absolutely does not mean carrying on as before (as is generally the case when commercial negotiations fail). Rather, no deal means that many of those laws that govern our interaction with the EU will cease to apply to us. However well both we and the EU prepare contingency plans, this will mean significant problems when it comes to, among other things, travel and trade. Not a good look for any governing party (hence all the more curious that there are Tory MPs who think it should be government policy). Then there is the “no trade deal” scenario. This is different from no deal as it may come about if the UK signs up to the withdrawal agreement but then fails to strike a trade deal with the EU governing future arrangements. The reason the two kinds of no-deal outcome are often confused is that the withdrawal agreement contains the seeds of a future relationship (despite what the EU has insisted about not negotiating the future until we have left). This is the famous backstop, which specifies a certain relationship with the EU for the UK as a whole, unless another way can be found of avoiding an intra-Irish border.
Those who favour no trade deal, or who favour the kind of trade deal that would necessitate a border in Ireland, simply refuse to sign up to the withdrawal agreement. Hence the no-trade-deal argument becomes a no-deal one.
From the point of view of Brexiters, no deal makes sense because, unlike the backstop, it would leave the UK completely free to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world on terms of its own choosing. It also means control over immigration, and no interference by the European Court of Justice (ECJ). But this line of thinking relies on a series of highly optimistic assumptions about how no deal would pan out. The argument of Tice and co runs like this. Once we’ve left, the EU will sit down with us to negotiate a trade deal. In the interim, article 24(5) of the WTO’s general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) will ensure that no new restrictions on trade are put in place. The problem with this “logic” is that it’s simply wrong in law. The main aim of article 24 of GATT is to enable the adoption of an interim agreement necessary for the formation of a customs union (CU) or a free-trade area (FTA) within a reasonable period of time (10 years). This recognises that a CU or an FTA will take time to conclude, and may need to be implemented gradually. The interim agreement is intended to prevent an increase of tariffs or regulations in the meantime.
But if Britain crashes out without a withdrawal deal, there will be no negotiations and hence no agreement leading to a CU or an FTA. The EU has made it clear that, in the event of a no-deal outcome, it will expect to settle outstanding withdrawal issues with the UK (money, citizens’ rights and the Northern Ireland border) before even thinking about talking future trade arrangements. Which in turn means GATT article 24 won’t apply. So we would immediately find ourselves trading on WTO terms, with the tariffs and checks that those imply, and no 10-year cushion. And no other major trading nation trades purely on WTO terms. British goods exported to the EU would be subject to tariffs. True, many of them are low (2-5%) but for agriculture they might be crippling, especially for small farmers (the average tariff on agri-food products is 22%, with dairy at 30% and meat often getting over 50%). Tariffs on goods coming into Britain would still be maintained on a number of food and animals products, as well as cars, but these would be significantly reduced for things such as pork and poultry. This may lead to cheaper products for consumers but would be devastating for many family farms, unable to compete with agricultural products coming from the US and elsewhere. It would also mean a hard border in Northern Ireland to control the quality of goods going to the Republic of Ireland and thus into the EU.
There would be delays on goods crossing the border and associated costs. As part of the EU single market and customs union there are no customs checks or formalities. No deal, by contrast, would mean the introduction of a swath of documentary checks, as well as a number of physical checks on vehicles and goods. These are, whatever the odd quote from an official in Calais might imply, not optional. Indeed, they happen at the UK border already for non-EU goods. This matters particularly for those manufacturing industries reliant on “just in time” supply chains, whose business models would simply not function in the event of delays at ports.
Take the car industry. Honda requires 350 trucks to carry 2m components to its Swindon plant each day. It says that just 15 minutes of customs delays would cost it up to £850,000 a year. Stockpiling parts to mitigate this would be hugely difficult and expensive. And then there are services, a crucial area for the UK economy. The UK would be relying on the relevant WTO provision: the general agreement on trade in services (GATS), which contains very limited provisions. So, to take one example, the 750 UK-based TV channels that broadcast into the EU will have to cease doing so or move into Europe. UK companies establishing in Europe will have to deal with 27 different sets of rules instead of one. And they will have limited protection against discrimination, meaning reduced UK investment abroad and reduced job growth here: every job created abroad by UK companies creates 3.5 in the UK.
The WTO also says nothing about cooperation in the field of criminal justice. The close cooperation enjoyed by UK police and law enforcement agencies with their counterparts in the EU27 will cease. The UK will no longer have access to the EU databases sharing information about wanted people, nor will it have access to the European arrest warrant (for returning criminals to the UK). Rather, it will have to rely on arcane conventions from the 1950s and bilateral agreements with each EU state. They will be nowhere near as effective as EU law is now. The no-deal slogan is appealing in its simplicity. And it ticks many political boxes for those who support it. But there needs to be honesty about the consequences. • Catherine Barnard is senior fellow at The UK in a Changing Europe. Anand Menon is director of The UK in a Changing Europe
Related video: Nigel Farage says normal campaigning is becoming impossible because people have been 'radicalised' Nigel Farage's Brexit Party refuses to rule out joining far-right EU group with Salvini and Le Pen Matteo Salvini has invited the Brexit Party to join the European Parliament alliance
Related video: Nigel Farage says normal campaigning is becoming impossible because people have been 'radicalised' Nigel Farage's Brexit Party refuses to rule out joining far-right EU group with Salvini and Le Pen Matteo Salvini has invited the Brexit Party to join the European Parliament alliance
Nigel Farage getting hit by a milkshake isn’t funny, it’s absolutely hilarious Great leaders used to be measured by whether you would take a bullet for them. Nigel Farage can’t even pay someone to take a gourmet milkshake for him
Nigel Farage getting hit by a milkshake isn’t funny, it’s absolutely hilarious Great leaders used to be measured by whether you would take a bullet for them. Nigel Farage can’t even pay someone to take a gourmet milkshake for him
Nigel Farage getting hit by a milkshake isn’t funny, it’s absolutely hilarious Great leaders used to be measured by whether you would take a bullet for them. Nigel Farage can’t even pay someone to take a gourmet milkshake for him
Nigel Farage getting hit by a milkshake isn’t funny, it’s absolutely hilarious Great leaders used to be measured by whether you would take a bullet for them. Nigel Farage can’t even pay someone to take a gourmet milkshake for him
Nigel Farage getting hit by a milkshake isn’t funny, it’s absolutely hilarious Great leaders used to be measured by whether you would take a bullet for them. Nigel Farage can’t even pay someone to take a gourmet milkshake for him
Nigel Farage getting hit by a milkshake isn’t funny, it’s absolutely hilarious Great leaders used to be measured by whether you would take a bullet for them. Nigel Farage can’t even pay someone to take a gourmet milkshake for him
Nigel Farage getting hit by a milkshake isn’t funny, it’s absolutely hilarious Great leaders used to be measured by whether you would take a bullet for them. Nigel Farage can’t even pay someone to take a gourmet milkshake for him
Nigel Farage getting hit by a milkshake isn’t funny, it’s absolutely hilarious Great leaders used to be measured by whether you would take a bullet for them. Nigel Farage can’t even pay someone to take a gourmet milkshake for him
Nigel Farage getting hit by a milkshake isn’t funny, it’s absolutely hilarious Great leaders used to be measured by whether you would take a bullet for them. Nigel Farage can’t even pay someone to take a gourmet milkshake for him
Comments
EXCLUSIVE analysis of the MEP voting records places Farage 745th out of 746 MEPs on the register - with only Brian Crowley, a MEP in Ireland who has NEVER voted, below him.
Nigel Farage only turned up to 40.7 per cent of all possible roll-call votes between July 2014 and May 2016
But exclusive analysis of the MEP voting records shows that Mr Farage only turned up to 40.7 per cent of all possible roll-call votes between July 2014 and May 2016.
This places him 745th out of 746 MEPs from across the different EU countries on the register.
The 746th is Brian Crowley, a MEP in Ireland who has never voted, according to the register.
A fall from a building left Mr Crowley paralysed from the waist down when he was 16 years old.
A spokesperson told the Irish Times in December 2014 that he had been in hospital for several months.
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/ukip-leader-nigel-farage-worst-8302679
As is claiming that this is the "Wales" edition when absolutely none of the Candidates is standing in Wales. Every edition is identical except for claiming it is the "Wales" , East" edition etc.
Meanwhile (I am going to keep asking this).
"How will voting for the Brexit Party speed up us leaving the European Union".
It is a one-issue Party. It is currently very popular. So could someone, anyone, explain how voting for them is going to help speed up us leaving?
Because people appear to be voting for a one-issue Party with no mandate to deliver anything. Precisely because the UK Parliament holds the power. Already. Not Europe.
Channel 4 news has been banned from events held by Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party, it has been confirmed.
The six-week ban was reportedly triggered after the broadcaster aired an investigation into Farage last week, revealing he had been bankrolled by Leave.EU co-founder Aaron Banks to the tune of £450,000.
David Lammy
✔
@DavidLammy
All media should boycott Brexit Party events if they have really blacklisted Channel 4 News for exposing the truth.
Mark Di Stefano
🤙🏻
Verified account
@MarkDiStef
Follow
Follow @MarkDiStef
More
Channel 4 source says the broadcaster has been blacklisted from Nigel Farage’s Brexit Party events since the investigation aired into Arron Banks and Farage’s finances last Thursday, confirming @paulwaugh’s previous tweet.
Very very worrying.
https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/channel-4-news-confirms-it-has-been-banned-from-brexit-party-events/ar-AABG7O2?ocid=spartandhp
You voting for her.
You voting for him.
The Brexit party has a new name for no deal. But the case for it still relies on dubious assumptions and flawed analysis
Richard Tice, chairman of the Brexit party, was banging the no-deal drum on the Today programme earlier this week, arguing that a “clean Brexit” (sounds appealing, doesn’t it?) would work out just fine because of the provisions of the World Trade Organization (WTO) treaty.
This analysis is fatally flawed. It rests on assumptions – dubious, at best –that allow the impact of a so-called clean Brexit to be fundamentally misrepresented. Here’s why.
By definition, “no deal” means the UK leaves the EU without signing the article 50 withdrawal agreement (Theresa May’s deal). Unlike a business deal, it absolutely does not mean carrying on as before (as is generally the case when commercial negotiations fail). Rather, no deal means that many of those laws that govern our interaction with the EU will cease to apply to us. However well both we and the EU prepare contingency plans, this will mean significant problems when it comes to, among other things, travel and trade. Not a good look for any governing party (hence all the more curious that there are Tory MPs who think it should be government policy).
Then there is the “no trade deal” scenario. This is different from no deal as it may come about if the UK signs up to the withdrawal agreement but then fails to strike a trade deal with the EU governing future arrangements.
The reason the two kinds of no-deal outcome are often confused is that the withdrawal agreement contains the seeds of a future relationship (despite what the EU has insisted about not negotiating the future until we have left). This is the famous backstop, which specifies a certain relationship with the EU for the UK as a whole, unless another way can be found of avoiding an intra-Irish border.
Those who favour no trade deal, or who favour the kind of trade deal that would necessitate a border in Ireland, simply refuse to sign up to the withdrawal agreement. Hence the no-trade-deal argument becomes a no-deal one.
From the point of view of Brexiters, no deal makes sense because, unlike the backstop, it would leave the UK completely free to negotiate trade deals with the rest of the world on terms of its own choosing. It also means control over immigration, and no interference by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).
But this line of thinking relies on a series of highly optimistic assumptions about how no deal would pan out. The argument of Tice and co runs like this. Once we’ve left, the EU will sit down with us to negotiate a trade deal. In the interim, article 24(5) of the WTO’s general agreement on tariffs and trade (GATT) will ensure that no new restrictions on trade are put in place.
The problem with this “logic” is that it’s simply wrong in law. The main aim of article 24 of GATT is to enable the adoption of an interim agreement necessary for the formation of a customs union (CU) or a free-trade area (FTA) within a reasonable period of time (10 years). This recognises that a CU or an FTA will take time to conclude, and may need to be implemented gradually. The interim agreement is intended to prevent an increase of tariffs or regulations in the meantime.
But if Britain crashes out without a withdrawal deal, there will be no negotiations and hence no agreement leading to a CU or an FTA. The EU has made it clear that, in the event of a no-deal outcome, it will expect to settle outstanding withdrawal issues with the UK (money, citizens’ rights and the Northern Ireland border) before even thinking about talking future trade arrangements. Which in turn means GATT article 24 won’t apply. So we would immediately find ourselves trading on WTO terms, with the tariffs and checks that those imply, and no 10-year cushion. And no other major trading nation trades purely on WTO terms.
British goods exported to the EU would be subject to tariffs. True, many of them are low (2-5%) but for agriculture they might be crippling, especially for small farmers (the average tariff on agri-food products is 22%, with dairy at 30% and meat often getting over 50%).
Tariffs on goods coming into Britain would still be maintained on a number of food and animals products, as well as cars, but these would be significantly reduced for things such as pork and poultry. This may lead to cheaper products for consumers but would be devastating for many family farms, unable to compete with agricultural products coming from the US and elsewhere. It would also mean a hard border in Northern Ireland to control the quality of goods going to the Republic of Ireland and thus into the EU.
There would be delays on goods crossing the border and associated costs. As part of the EU single market and customs union there are no customs checks or formalities. No deal, by contrast, would mean the introduction of a swath of documentary checks, as well as a number of physical checks on vehicles and goods.
These are, whatever the odd quote from an official in Calais might imply, not optional. Indeed, they happen at the UK border already for non-EU goods. This matters particularly for those manufacturing industries reliant on “just in time” supply chains, whose business models would simply not function in the event of delays at ports.
Take the car industry. Honda requires 350 trucks to carry 2m components to its Swindon plant each day. It says that just 15 minutes of customs delays would cost it up to £850,000 a year. Stockpiling parts to mitigate this would be hugely difficult and expensive.
And then there are services, a crucial area for the UK economy. The UK would be relying on the relevant WTO provision: the general agreement on trade in services (GATS), which contains very limited provisions. So, to take one example, the 750 UK-based TV channels that broadcast into the EU will have to cease doing so or move into Europe. UK companies establishing in Europe will have to deal with 27 different sets of rules instead of one. And they will have limited protection against discrimination, meaning reduced UK investment abroad and reduced job growth here: every job created abroad by UK companies creates 3.5 in the UK.
The WTO also says nothing about cooperation in the field of criminal justice. The close cooperation enjoyed by UK police and law enforcement agencies with their counterparts in the EU27 will cease. The UK will no longer have access to the EU databases sharing information about wanted people, nor will it have access to the European arrest warrant (for returning criminals to the UK). Rather, it will have to rely on arcane conventions from the 1950s and bilateral agreements with each EU state. They will be nowhere near as effective as EU law is now.
The no-deal slogan is appealing in its simplicity. And it ticks many political boxes for those who support it. But there needs to be honesty about the consequences.
• Catherine Barnard is senior fellow at The UK in a Changing Europe. Anand Menon is director of The UK in a Changing Europe
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/may/21/clean-brexit-party-no-deal
Nigel Farage's Brexit Party refuses to rule out joining far-right EU group with Salvini and Le Pen
Matteo Salvini has invited the Brexit Party to join the European Parliament alliance
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/brexit-party-farage-european-elections-far-right-salvini-le-pen-a8923601.html
Great leaders used to be measured by whether you would take a bullet for them. Nigel Farage can’t even pay someone to take a gourmet milkshake for him
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/nigel-farage-milkshake-brexit-a8922511.html
You appear to glorify violence.
Can
Has anyone mentioned the £2.20 deepstack at 2:15?