Quantcast

Categorized | News, Opinion

IS THIS the TORIES’ VERSION of the IMFAMOUS 47% COMMENT?

The Telegraph (UK) is reporting that a minister of the present Coalition Government, Ken Clarke, said this:

Speaking to the Murnaghan programme on Sky News, Mr Clarke referred to comments made by the Prime Minister in 2006 when he dismissed Ukip as being full of “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”.

Speaking to the Murnaghan programme on Sky News Mr Clarke said: “I’ve met people who satisfy both those descriptions in UKIP. Indeed some of the people who assure me that they are going to vote UKIP I would put into that category. And I rather suspect that they have never voted for me.”

Assuming that 17% of the electorate is thinking of voting for UKIP, why would the Tories alienate the group – one they need to win an outright majority?

It’s obvious to me that this MP does not get it.  He does not understand that the future of the United Kingdom as a sovereign state is at risk because of EU and European institutions.  Mr. Clarke does not get that the British government cannot extradite an accused terrorist to Jordan to stand trial because of the meddling of the ECHR?  Does the MP not understand that that same court (the one that cannot find any right to homeschool your kids and upheld Nazi era laws to do it!) says Britain MUST give imprisoned felons the vote?

How about explaining that this EU wants to control national budgets – not Westminster?  Is is loony to oppose that?  It is certainly not racist.

Here’s evidence of the same:

Member states are responsible for ensuring that their national legislation is consistent with European law. Where it is not, they must amend existing provisions, and introduce such new law as necessary.

Ultimately, individuals can be bound by either national or European law. Food safety, for example, comes under EU law, whereas most criminal law is national.

Must amend existing law?  Is that’s what the UK is reduced to?  Something not unlike an American state?  It’s not UKIP that’s loony for opposing that.

How about the $30,000,000 in European taxpayers money spent by the EU to influence US domestic policy?  Am I a fruitcake to oppose foreigners influencing our domestic policy?  What if the EU has spent taxpayers money to influence British domestic policy?  The money was spent in secret, according to the Heritage Foundation.  Can we know that funds have not been spent to influence British newspapers?  This is from the Heritage report:

“EU heads of state and governments should be informed of all past and future confidential payments to individuals, corporations, or “natural persons” in both EU and non-EU states. A designated EU official should be responsible for disclosing all confidential payments via member states’ permanent representatives in Brussels;…”

UKIP is not a racist party and is the only alternative to the Tweedledee and Tweedledum parties in the UK.  Let’s see what happens on May 2.

About Elwood Sanders

Elwood “Sandy” Sanders is a Hanover attorney who is an Appellate Procedure Consultant for Lantagne Legal Printing and has written ten scholarly legal articles. Sandy was also Virginia’s first Appellate Defender and also helped bring curling in VA! (None of these titles imply any endorsement of Sanders’ views)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

CommentLuv badge

Tom White Says:

Nothing is more conservative than a republican wanting to get their majority back. And nothing is more liberal than a republican WITH a majority.

Check out NewsMax!

Sign up for Virginia Right Once Daily Email Digest

No Spam - ever! We send a daily email with the posts of the previous day. Unsubscribe at any time.
* = required field

Submit a Blog Post!

Submit a Blog Post for our 'Boots on the Ground' feature

Click Here for Instructions on How to Submit a Post

Google Ad

Google Ad

Follow Us Anywhere!

Google Ad

Archives

Facebook Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com
%d bloggers like this: