> Home > News > News > What do UKIP MEPs do in Strasbourg and what does it all mean?
>  News

What do UKIP MEPs do in Strasbourg and what does it all mean?
Date 29/05/2012 11:01  Author webmaster  Hits 1230  Language Global

The report on 'a resource-efficient Europe' calls for total EU control of land, water, carbon footprint, material footprint, etc, in the interests of 'sustainable development', much like the control the defunct Soviet politburo exercised over the defunct USSR. Not very promising territory for UKIP you might think...

Godfrey Bloom
MEP

On Thursday 24 May in the parliament in Strasbourg, a city very beautiful to visit in the warm month of May, there was a minor vote on a minor non-legislative matter which UKIP won. That is to say, UKIP voted with the majority of the MEPs in the European Parliament on an individually electronically recorded vote for a small section of a report which merely expresses an opinion in the house, but was not binding for any action or passage into law. Now as anyone at all familiar with the voting in the EP knows, UKIP winning any vote is a rare enough event, but even so this is nothing to crow about, it being but a small fish when seen in proportion to the whole shoal.



But I feel this little victory is worth comment, as a second glance shows that on some issues the mood in the parliament can change very quickly, and there is a way that we may be winning bigger votes in the future if we play our cards right.

The report
 A7-0161/2012, is entitled 'On a resource-efficient Europe', and is a non-legislative 'Motion for a European Parliament Resolution', sponsored by the Environment committee MEP Gerben-Jan Gerbrandy. The overall tone of the report calls for total EU control of land, water, carbon footprint, material footprint, etc, in the interests of 'sustainable development', much like the control the defunct Soviet politburo exercised over the defunct USSR. Not very promising territory for UKIP you might think.

However, while the overall report has the crucial final vote which we were bound to lose, paragraph 52 is very sensible, and was subject to a separate vote, which we won.

It reads:

" 52. Urges the Commission also to calculate and disclose the costs of the environmental damage arising as a consequence of the EU’s agriculture and fisheries policies;"

The vote figures were:


" Resource efficient Europe

Paragraph 52 (want Commission to calculate and disclose costs of environmental damage of CAP & CFP)
- 312 in favour, 287 against, 12 abstain {UKIP for (we won!)} - Tory against - Lab for - Lib for"

This reminds me of the fisheries vote we won late last year, preventing a subsidy of EUR38 million to the Moroccan government for EU permission to fish in their waters - which would do to their fish stocks what have been done to Britain's.


The moral of the story is simple: if we can get the Green Environmental costs quantified, or even threaten to quantify them, and relate them to damage already done by the same EU policies, we can win a lot more like this, and save our industry and our land from utterly wrong and foolish EU policies. Note that banging on about the cost on its own does not work. We need to add the extra motivator of the environment policy back-firing to get the needed majority.

One last point - the cherry on top - the Conservatives voted against holding the Commission to account for the eco-vandalism of their expensive policies. A telling point we all might relate in our discussions in the pub.

Godfrey Bloom's blog