Bangor Jobs Needed

IMGL7807

Commenting on the need for investment in jobs, training and the future of Bangor, UKIP Assembly Candidate for North Down, Bill Piper said:

Magnificent Footpaths and Lamp Standards.
“Nowhere can I ever remember seeing such magnificent footpaths, lamp standards and benches, as we have here in Bangor.  I am surprised that they are not featured more prominently on the town’s publicity posters and advertising literature.

“Whilst walking around Bangor and chatting to people during this campaign, do the people tell me of these wonderful features ? NO, they do not.

What are the local concerns? The seafront, where is the Debenhams that was promised – why has it taken so long for nothing to happen? 

Where is the investment in this place? Where is the investment of jobs, training, housing and  infrastructure in our town?”

Mr. Piper added:

“You may well say – it’s easy for you to criticise – and, yes it is always easy to criticise. But wouldn’t that money have been much better spent on generating greater training and employment here? Not just minimum wage (NLW) jobs. Real, full time and sustainable jobs with real wages. Why can’t Bangor  be a hub for jobs, for training and future building? If this was addressed- there would be the money circulating in Bangor area to fuel the shops and the investment in the long-term future of this area that is required.

This is one of the many reasons why I believe Stormont needs a serious shake-up at election time. There needs to be more joined-up thinking in that place. On May 5th, people will have the chance to send a message by electing UKIP MLAs.

 UKIP is a party focused on building a better future for our people. Let us concentrate on the important tasks for this place first – then worry about  funding the fripperies.”

The BIG EU Debate NI

IMGL7935

The BIG  EU Debate NI

Vernon Coaker versus Nigel Farage.

Very interesting, especially for N.I., real politics, none of the usual tribalism.

Mr Coaker failed to put forward any argument as to why we should stay in the EU, just seemed to prefer to condemn Mr Farrage’s arguments as what he ‘asserts. Failing to put forward his own argument, just ‘dissing’ he component’s is hardly the best way of convincing an audience. Pity he couldn’t use a greater vocabulary.

He also suggested there were two understandings of the word “sovereignty”. Surely a dictionary – or even an encyclopaedia would only come up with one!.
Maybe we ought to club together to buy him a dictionary.

On the question of jobs and the future for our youth, from concerned parents and students in the audience, the only positive messages came from Mr Farrage, again Mr Coaker preferred to question Mr Farrage’s answer rather than give his own.

And someone tell him some valid facts why he wants us to stay in the EU.

He ‘asserts’ there is no proof of future integration. Maybe he ought to do his homework before playing with the “Real Deal”.

Even the papers form Westminster circa 1975 proved that to be a fallacy!

Whilst entertaining and spirited Mr Coaker failed to convince anyone who knew what they were talking about – shame – perhaps we’ll be fortunate to have a better calibre of person at the meeting on Friday.


Mr Coaker was not only wearing a purple tie in the picture, but a very UKIP purple tie at the event – should we read anything into this  ? – possibly not,

Nine deceptions in our history with the EU

Nine deceptions in our history with the EU

The strange pseudo-deal stitched up between David Cameron and his 27 EU colleagues is yet another example of the EU’s smoke and mirrors

IMGL7813


He knew he was lying over our ‘loss of sovereignty’: a smiling Edward Heath at the count for Britain’s referendum on membership of the European Community in 1975
By Christopher Booker

The key to understanding the unique system of government known as the “European Union” is that everything about it is based on smoke and mirrors, with nothing ever being quite what it is pretending to be. Of this, the strange little pseudo-deal stitched up between David Cameron and his 27 EU colleagues is only yet another example.
When, some years back, I co‑authored what I believe is still the most comprehensively researched history of the “European project”, nothing struck me more than how consistently it has, at every stage, been built on one deception after another, which is why the book was called The Great Deception. Here are nine of them.

1. How it all began
To this day, the European Commission website deliberately confuses two quite incompatible models for a future “United States of Europe” put forward after the Second World War. Its account starts with Winston Churchill’s call for a “United States of Europe” in 1946, which led two years later to the “intergovernmental” Council of Europe. But no one was more scornful of this than the Frenchman Jean Monnet, who had a wholly different model in mind, first conceived back in the Twenties. His “United States of Europe” would be centred on an entirely new kind of “supranational” government, able to overrule the vetoes of any of its individual member states. It was Monnet’s vision that won, through the “Schuman Declaration” he drafted in 1950. This led to the European Coal and Steel Community, with Monnet at its head, which even then he explicitly hailed as the “government of Europe”.
Cameron’s deal was yet more ‘smoke and mirrors’  Photo: REUTERS/Srdjan Zivulovic

2. ‘Switch-sell’ in Rome
When Monnet’s first bid to move straight to the complete political union of its original six members was rebuffed in 1954, he and his allies realised they could only achieve their real goal step by step. So they deliberately decided to conceal it, by pretending that they were only seeking to create a trading arrangement. But the treaty of Rome in 1957 did begin by declaring their intention to work for “ever-closer union”, and set up all the core institutions needed to run a future government of Europe – even though this was far more than was needed to administer what was sold as its headline purpose: the creation of just a “Common Market”.

3. Macmillan joins deceit
When, in 1961, Britain first applied to join “the Six”, Harold Macmillan and Edward Heath had been fully briefed by Monnet’s allies as to the project’s ultimate goal, full economic and political union. But papers released under the 30-year rule show that, at the end of June, the Cabinet accepted their urging that, for “presentational” reasons, this should not be revealed to the public or Parliament. British entry should be sold as being only to a “Common Market”, concerned just with trade and jobs.

4. Britain taken in by Heath
We can also now see how deliberately, when Heath applied for British entry in 1970, he perpetuated the same deception. His Europe minister was sent to plead with Brussels to keep quiet about its already emerging plans for a single currency (another Monnet idea). And although we were repeatedly told that British entry would involve “no essential loss of sovereignty”, a secret Foreign Office paper, released 30 years later, shows that the government knew how important it was to conceal just how untrue this was. This was compounded in the 1975 referendum, when the campaign for Britain to stay in deliberately centred only on how vital this was to our trade and economic prosperity.

5. Towards ‘Union’
In the early Eighties, much more ambitious plans were afoot for a further leap forward to integration: it was so ambitious that it was secretly agreed that this would require not one but two more treaties. The first, the “Single European Act” in 1986, was again sold as being only concerned with turning the Common Market into a “Single Market”. But in reality the treaty was just what its title indicated: another major move towards a “Single Europe”, giving Brussels control over several other important policy areas little concerned with trade.

6. The Maastricht treaty
The 1992 Maastricht Treaty on European Union brought out into the open the next instalment in the march towards the ultimate goal, centred not just on full “economic and monetary union”, including Monnet’s single currency (from which Britain won what was meant to be only a temporary opt-out); but also much else, never fully explained at the time, including moves towards giving the new “European Union” its own foreign and defence policies.

7. Blair ‘at heart of Europe’
Tony Blair’s ambition to be “at the heart of Europe” led him to collaborate fully with moves to make the European Council (another Monnet idea) the EU’s political “Cabinet of Europe”, with its own foreign and defence policies, and also towards giving the EU its own “Constitution”, to make it in effect a sovereign government on the world stage.

8. The ‘Lisbon switch-sell’
After the “Constitution for Europe” was in 2005 rejected by French and Dutch voters, virtually the same document was then smuggled back in as the more harmless-sounding “Lisbon Treaty” in 2007, for the first time formalising the European Council as an official institution of “the government of Europe”.

9. Mr Cameron’s ‘treaty’
Almost everything about Cameron’s “treaty” to give Britain a “special relationship” with the EU is yet again smoke and mirrors, not least the insistence that it is “legally binding and irreversible”. Under the Vienna Convention, a treaty is only valid when the signatories can guarantee delivery of what they have agreed. But in at least two respects, on economic governance and recognition that Britain is no longer bound to “ever closer union”, Cameron’s deal requires change to the EU treaties themselves. So it could only become “legally binding” after going through all the procedures now required for EU treaty change, depending on ratification by every member state, often involving referendums, any one of which could make Cameron’s “treaty” reversible.
Until then, Cameron’s little deal cannot conceivably be considered “legally binding”. To pretend otherwise is just another deception. But he may still get away with it, because no one will challenge him on it (Michael Gove’s claim that it could be reversed by the European Court of Justice is quite irrelevant).
The fearful irony of what is going on was exemplified by that poll last week which found that, while 65 per cent of the British electorate describe themselves as “sceptical” about the EU, only 30 per cent would wish us to leave it. And if there is one reason above all else for this seeming contradiction, it is the total failure of the various “Leave” campaigns to agree on any plausible, properly worked-out plan for how we could extricate ourselves from the political “government of Europe” while continuing to have full access to the Single Market.
It is this failure that allows Cameron and his allies to play their only trump card – that fear of a “leap in the dark” which might somehow exclude us from the trading arrangement which has been used as the main justification for why we needed to be “in Europe” ever since we joined it. Because none of the Leave groups have done the homework needed to show us how it could be done, the Remainers can terrify us into fearing that we could lose our economic future.
As Roy Jenkins shrewdly put it in 1999, there have only ever been “two coherent British attitudes to Europe”. Either we should wholeheartedly embrace what it was always intended to be, ever since Monnet set it in train six decades ago. Or we should negotiate a “reasonably amicable withdrawal”. Otherwise we are doomed to remain just a “foot-dragging, constantly complaining member” of something most of us instinctively distrust and dislike.
But that is what it seems we are fated to choose on June 23 – because our political class has now been actively collaborating with that “great deception” – albeit too often foot-dragging and complaining – for half a century.