UK Independence Party Member of European Parliament Nigel Farage has refused to back down over comments he directed toward EU chief and global governance proponent Herman van Rompuy during a speech in front of the EU parliament last week.

In response to calls to apologise for saying van Rompuy had “the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk”, Farage announced that he would apologise, but only to bank clerks the world over.

“If I have offended them I am very sorry indeed.” Farage quipped before stressing “I am not going to apologise to Herman van Rompuy, I am not going to apologise to the European Parliament, and I’m certainly not going to apologise to the people of Belgium.”

Farage defended his comments as “realistic, truthful and a necessary part of waking the people up to van Rompuy’s plans for an economic government of the EU.”

“The president has said he will not let this happen again. What a democratic institution this is isn’t it?” Farage said, adding “He will let me know shortly what my penalty will be.”

Farage expects to be suspended for a period of time, and foresees an attempt by van Rompuy and Parliament President Jerzy Buzek to take away his position as leader of a group in the Parliament.

The backlash directed at Farage comes after he savaged Bilderberg member van Rompuy last week, labeling the EU President “the quiet assassin of European nation states” and adding that his position has “no legitimacy”.

The job of president of the European Council, now occupied by van Rompuy, was created under the Lisbon Treaty, which was passed without a referendum in Britain and despite previous majority opposition in countries such as the Netherlands and France.

“Frankly, what Mr van Rompuy wants to do is to take away from us our rights of democracy and self government. You can’t do that without us as elected members coming back and saying we’re not very happy about it.” Farage told reporters today.

“All I can say is that those of us who have battled against the European institutions, on the basis that they are becoming fundamentally undemocratic, have been proved to be right.” Farage said.

“I have not used unparliamentary language, I have not incited dislike or hatred, I have merely expressed an opinion, and in doing so there is now actually a debate about who is Herman van Rompuy, Why is he being paid more than Obama, and just what powers has he got. I’m not going to apologise if what I have said has sparked a debate off right throughout the EU about these institutions.” he added.

“This is clearly an issue of freedom of speech. The same rulebook that is being thrown at me also contains the guarantee that Members freedom of speech should not be undermined.”

“I will appeal any ruling by Mr Buzek, who clearly has a different interpretation of freedom of speech to me.” Farage asserted.

“This is about free speech, the right to say what is not popular with the political elite, and the right to represent my constituents as I see fit.” Farage said.

“After all, unlike Mr van Rompuy, I have been elected.”

Watch Nigel Farage’s comments to reporters today in the European Parliament in Brussels:

DanHannanMEP
February 26, 2010

Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
Thursday, February 25, 2010

Courageous British MEP Nigel Farage savaged Bilderberg member and global governance proponent Herman van Rompuy during a speech in front of the EU parliament, labeling the EU President “the quiet assassin of European nation states,” while van Rompuy sat and squirmed.

UK Independence Party leader Farage took the opportunity of van Rompuy’s first appearance in Parliament to harangue the EU President for his open contempt for national sovereignty.

Van Rompuy announced 2009 as the “first year of global governance” when he was appointed to be President back in November, just days after he called for a Europe-wide tax that would be paid directly to Brussels at a Bilderberg Group dinner in Brussels on November 15th.

Van Rompuy, addressing the EU Parliament in French, repeated the call for global governance during his speech yesterday.

“It is thanks to the EU that the G20 was born; We took the initiative to create this embryo of world governance,” stated the unelected EU President.

Farage said van Rompuy had “the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk” before outing him as the perfect figurehead for EU authoritarianism.

“The question that I want to ask and that we are all going to ask is: who are you? I had never heard of you; nobody in Europe had ever heard of you. I would like to ask you, Mr President: who voted for you? And what mechanism – I know democracy is not popular with you lot – what mechanism do the peoples of Europe have to remove you? Is this European democracy?” asked Farage.

“Sir, you have no legitimacy in this job at all, and I can say with confidence that I can speak on behalf of the majority of the British people in saying: we do not know you, we do not want you, and the sooner you are put out to grass, the better,” said Farage as he was heckled by other Parliament members.

Farage labeled van Rompuy “capable, competent, and dangerous,” before continuing, “I have no doubt that it is your intention to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of the European nation states. You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states; perhaps that is because you come from Belgium, which of course is pretty much a non-country.”

Farage now faces an official reprimand next week from Jerzy Buzek, the Parliament President, and Socialist leaders, furious that Farage has found an avenue through which to repeatedly highlight dictatorial nature of the EU, are calling for his resignation.

However, despite the corporate media attacking Farage for his “rude” personal attack on van Rompuy, similar rhetoric was not directed towards EU members who have called Farage a Nazi or a “monkey in a tree,” revealing a clear double standard where critics of the EU are made examples of while proponents are protected.

As we previously reported, shortly after the announcement of van Rompuy as EU President, Farage made headlines when he exposed the fact that the EU is an authoritarian dictatorship ruled by unelected bureaucrats to the detriment of national sovereignty.

Farage slammed the EU for its aggressive and dictatorial tactics, stating, “It’s taken you eight and a half years of bullying, of lying, of ignoring democratic referendums to get this treaty through (referring to the Lisbon Treaty)”.

During the same speech, Farage identified van Rompuy as little more than a puppet for the real EU power base headed by “post-industrial revolution” advocate and European Commission President, Manuel Barroso.

As we have highlighted in the past, despite accusations by EU Parliamentarians that Farage is “opening the door to fascism” by merely being critical of the EU, in actual fact Nazism and the EU have some very disturbing parallels. Indeed, the two are fundamentally intertwined and the origins of the EU can be traced directly back to the Nazis.

The fact that the EU was a brainchild of top Nazi economists and industrialists, formulated as a means of preserving dictatorial power and then implemented by a former Nazi working under the auspices of the Bilderberg Group in 1955, proves that the entire European Union system is poisoned with a legacy and a raison d’être of totalitarianism.

This is becoming increasingly obvious in the 21st century as popular social movements across Europe rise up to oppose the blatant power grab being undertaken by the EU via the Lisbon Treaty, which was forced through in Ireland last year despite the population having already rejected it in a previous national referendum.

Watch the clip below.

europarl
February 24, 2010

► European Parliament, Brussels – 24.02.2010

► Speaker: Nigel Farage MEP, UKIP, Co-President of the EFD group.

► Debate: European Council and Commission statements – EU 2020 – Follow-up of the informal European Council of 11 February 2010

President of the EU Council Herman Van Rompuy and Commisson President Jose Manuel Barroso participated in the debate.

…………………………….

Entire Transcript:

Nigel Farage MEP, Presdient of the EFD Group (Europe of Freedom and Democracy):

We were told that when we had a president, we’d see a giant global political figure – the man that would be the political leader for 500 million people. The man that would represent all of us on the world stage. The man whose job was so important that of course you’re paid more than President Obama. Well, I’m afraid what we’ve got was you. And I’m sorry, but after that performance, earlier, that you gave – and I don’t want to be rude – but, you know, really, you have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low-grade bank clerk. And the question that I want to ask – [disruption] – the question that I want to ask is: Who are you? I’d never heard of you; nobody in Europe has ever heard of you. I would like to ask you, president, who voted for you? And what mechanism? Oh, I know democracy is not popular with you lot – [disruptions] – and what mechanism do the peoples of Europe have to remove you? Is this European democracy? Well, I sense though that you’re competent and capable and dangerous, and I have no doubt that it’s your intention to be the quiet assassin of European democracy and of the European nation states. You appear to have a loathing for the very concept of the existence of nation states – perhaps that’s because you come from Belgium, which of course is pretty much a non-country. But since you took over, we’ve seen Greece reduced to nothing more than a protecorate – Sir, you have no legitimacy in this job, at all, and I can say with confidence, that I can speak on behalf of the majority of the British people in saying: We don’t know you, we don’t want you and the sooner you’re put out to grass, the better.

Jerzy Buzek, President of the European Parliament:

Well, as you said Mr Presdient, you wouldn’t like to be rude, and I, well, I prefer to go ahead with this statement.

[Joseph Daul here uses the 'blue card' and informs Mr Farage that the UK can leave the EU.]

Martin Schulz MEP, Presdient of the S&D group (Socialists) on a point of order:

I’m very disappointed with you, President Buzek. It is not acceptable that in this parliament, that a group chairman not only criticises a president of the council, but calls him a ‘wet rag’. I expect you, president, to call this person to order. It’s not right that this man should be able to trample on the dignity of this house. It’s not just a case of allowing the UK to leave the EU, it would be better for Mr Farage to resign if the EU and the European Parliament are such bad things in his eyes.

Jerzy Buzek:

Thank you president, just as I have said to President Farage preveiously, two months ago, and today I repeat this. These types of addresses which are character assassinations of individuals are inadmissible in the European Parliament and I spoke to Mr Farage about it and I drew his attention to it. Mr Schulz, I’d like to say that this is how I work and that’s my way of going about it.

[Nigel Farage asks for a rebuttal]

Is it personal statement? The floor is yours.

Nigel Farage:

You may not like what I say, but just consider your behaviour – you, after the Irish people in a referendum voted ‘no’, said that our group, by supporting the ‘no’ vote, had opened the door to fascism. You said that we had behaved as a group in the parliament, like Hitler and the Nazis in the Reichstag. We’ve been called by Danny Cohn Bendit, ‘Mentally weak’. You know, it can’t be one way…

Buzek intervenes:

It is not personal statement, Mr President Farage, it is not personal satemtn. I am very sorry, it was not personal statement. We must keep order and all the regulations of our parliament.

END
…………………………….

► Video: European Parliament Audio Visual

…………………………….

► EU Member States:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom

Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
UK Daily Telegraph
23 Feb 2010

A meeting of EU foreign ministers expressed concern that Lady Ashton allowed Mr Barroso to pick the most important diplomatic post.

The row is expected to further damage Europe’s standing with the United States after Barack Obama pulled out of an EU-US summit because of confusion over who was in charge of European foreign policy.

The Daily Telegraph understands that Mr Barroso’s decision on Feb 17 to appoint Joao Vale de Almeida, a fellow Portuguese who served as Mr Barroso’s chief of staff for five years until last November, was taken without any consultation.

Mr Vale de Almeida’s appointment to replace John Bruton, a former Irish premier, as Washington ambassador was leaked in America 24 hours before the official decision was taken, before Lady Ashton or any national government was informed.

As High Representative, or foreign minister, a post created under the Lisbon Treaty, Lady Ashton is supposed to preserve the control of the Council of the EU, which represents national governments, over the creation of a new European diplomatic service.

Carl Bildt, Sweden’s foreign minister and a candidate for Lady Ashton’s post last year, has written to her, and other EU member states, in a strongly worded protest.

Mr Bildt accused Lady Ashton of compromising her job and of damaging the legitimacy of the EU’s foreign policy by caving in to the Commission.

“This nomination has been done without applying the very principles now under discussion where transparency, member states involvement and, above all, your roles as appointing authority are key elements,” he wrote.

“Member states’ participation in the staffing of the European External Action Service, at all levels, is crucial, not only for reasons of legitimacy abut also in order to create an esprit de corps of its won.”

Responding to the criticism, Lady Ashton claimed that the appointment was made under 2009 rules because it was unfinished business left over from last year – an argument rejected by foreign ministers.

“Understandably member states wanted to be more involved,” she admitted.

Pierre Lellouche, the French Europe minister, accused the Commission of breaking a “gentleman’s agreement” that member states would be consulted on the appointment and warned that its “bureaucratic battles” could damage the EU’s ability to act globally.

Under the Lisbon Treaty, which came into force in December last year, diplomatic appointments are now Lady Ashton’s responsibility, but the detailed rules of procedure will not be in place until April.

EU diplomats have warned that the Commission’s coup d’etat has further undermined Lady Ashton’s credibility for the European foreign minister job.

“The British keep telling us she has great powers of negotiation. But Barroso has pulled a fast one and Ashton does not have the authority to stand up to him,” said a European diplomat.

William Hague, the shadow foreign secretary, said: “We repeatedly warned that the Lisbon Treaty would not, as Labour claimed, make the EU more efficient but would lead to massive bureaucratic turf wars. That is exactly what is now happening.”

DanHannanMEP
February 18, 2010

GERMAN FOREIGN minister Guido Westerwelle has called for the EU to proceed with plans for a European army under the Lisbon Treaty, which he dubbed “the beginning and not the end” of a common security and defence policy.

His remarks at the annual Munich Security Conference followed a call by Berlin’s defence minister Karl Theodor zu Guttenberg to end what he called Nato’s “absurd” practice of unanimous decision-making.

“The (Lisbon) treaty lays out a common security and defence policy. The federal government wants to make progress on this front,” said Mr Westerwelle. “The long-term goal is to build up a European army under parliamentary control. The EU has to live up to political expectations of its role as a global player.” The foreign minister sketched out a role for such an army as crisis management in a time of resource scarcity, to be developed by willing member states over time as a “motor for closer co-operation” in the EU. In a nod to Nato, Mr Westerwelle said such EU structures would not replace other military structures.

Germany’s top diplomat received backing for his plan from his Russian counterpart, Sergei Lavrov, who called for a “single European military-political space” in which no one country’s security was sacrificed for another.

“We want to overcome the bloc-thinking of the Cold War in Europe and create a new kind of mutual trust,” said Mr Lavrov.

The weekend meeting in Munich, a think-in for defence players, was dominated by the ongoing standoff with Iran over nuclear uranium enrichment which Tehran says is energy and not military-related, as western countries fear.

EU foreign minister Catherine Ashton said the “possibilities of dialogue are not yet exhausted”, despite clear impatience from other conference speakers.

Iranian foreign minister Manouchehr Mottaki made a surprise appearance in Munich, raising hopes of an important announcement, only to dash them again with a general statement about “conducive ground . . . to agreement in the near future”.

Mr zu Guttenberg dismissed Mr Mottaki’s Munich trip as a “farce”.

Turning his attention to Nato, he called on an end to the “cultivated absurdity” of the alliance’s principle of unanimity in decision making. “We talk too much and act too little,” he said.

europarl
February 09, 2010

► European Parliament, Strasbourg – 09.02.2010

► Speaker: Nigel Farage MEP, UKIP, Co-President of the EFD group.

► Debate: Wind up debate on the presentation by Jose Manuel Barroso of the College of Commissioners

…………………………….

► Video: European Parliament Audio Visual

…………………………….

► EU Member States:

Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Germany, Denmark, Estonia, Spain, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, United Kingdom

► Other states in Europe:

Switzerland, Iceland, Norway, Faroes, Andorra, Monaco, Liechtenstein, San Marino, Russia, Ukraine, Moldova, Transdniestria (Transnistria), Belarus, Turkey, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Serbia, Montenegro, Albania, Kosovo, Abkhazia, South Ossetia.

As they say in Brussels, the Lady doesn’t cut la moutarde. In her first weeks as the EU Foreign Affairs Minister, Catherine Ashton has managed to make a hash of it. One diplomat even confided that she had “killed the job”.

Jean Quatremer, a French journalist and one of the keenest observers of the European Commission for 20 years, has been distilling details of Baroness Ashton of Upholland’s routine in Brussels. It would seem that the Labour peer spends more time on the Eurostar commuting home to London than in her office, where nobody answers the phone after 8pm.

Too bad when the caller is Hillary Clinton saying that she’s on her way to Haiti. Was Catherine en route? No. On Friday January 15, she had cancelled all appointments to go home earlier. José Manuel Barroso had to send Karel De Gucht, the Development Commissioner.

A few days later, Lady Ashton tried to defend herself. Her arguments fell decidedly flat: “I’m neither a doctor nor a fireman.” Indeed, but surely she must know that diplomacy at this level implies symbolic gestures and fast action. The EU has committed four times more in aid to Haiti than the US, so it would have been logical, if not crucial for Europe’s image that its Foreign Affairs Minister stood alongside the Secretary of State.

In the European Parliament, a French MEP harangued Lady Ashton: “You shouldn’t be here but in Haiti.” Michel Barnier, sharp as a tack, said: “In December 2004, when the tsunami struck and I was the French Foreign Affairs Minister, I left immediately for South-East Asia.”

Figures are not her thing either. Last Monday, at a press conference where she was supposed to give an update on European aid to Haiti, Lady Ashton had to be rescued by Miguel Ángel Moratinos, the Spanish Foreign Minister, whose brief was delivered in three languages.

Lady Ashton must be the only person in Brussels unable to speak more than one language fluently. But this shouldn’t have stopped her joining a UN seminar organised by Ban Ki Moon with Mrs Clinton present, or contacting the world’s heads of state on taking up her job on December 1. London may naively have thought that with Lady Ashton at the heart of Brussels, Britain would at last get some leverage; but with such poor leadership, the 27 European countries will resort to individual diplomacy. So much for speaking with one voice in the world.

Can somebody find the Lady a decent flat in Brussels — and a language teacher?

Some Christians say their prayers have been answered after the House of Lords on Monday defeated changes to a law that would have required church groups to hire homosexuals or others whose manner of life is inconsistent with their teaching.

Peers voted 216 to 178 in favor of Lady O’Cathain’s amendment to retain an exemption for religious groups to equality employment laws.

Reacting to the result, Lady O’Cathain said Tuesday: “I know that very many Christians were praying that justice would prevail as the House of Lords voted on this important issue. Many also wrote wise, sensitive letters to peers, seeking to persuade them of our case.

“We give thanks to God for the outcome, and we continue to pray for our Government, as Scripture exhorts us to do, that God would bless their counsels.”

The Christian Institute’s Mike Judge commented, “The prayers of thousands of Christians and letter writing to peers was key to protecting our freedom.”

“Surely churches should be free to employ people whose conduct is consistent with church teaching. Surely that’s not asking too much,” Judge added. “It’s called freedom of association, and it’s a key liberty in any democratic society. The fact that the Government couldn’t see this will concern many Christians.”

The government attempted to restrict the exemption for religious organizations solely to ministers and other positions that wholly or mainly “exist to promote or represent the religion or to explain the doctrines of the religion.”

Christians argued that if the Equality Bill was passed without Lady O’Cathain’s amendment, which leaves the current law unchanged, it would impose considerable restrictions on who religious organizations could employ and put them in the difficult position of having to appoint someone who did not conform to their ethos and beliefs.

Last week, bishops in the Church of England argued that the bill would leave religious organizations “more vulnerable to legal challenge.”

Dr. Don Horrocks, head of public affairs for the Evangelical Alliance, said the government’s amendments to change the current law “would have left churches and organizations unsure whether they could prefer practicing Christians for the majority of their roles.”

“Now, they can continue to appoint people who are committed to the ethos of the organizations they are supposed to represent,” Horrocks said. “It’s a victory for common sense. I hope the government will accept this and not prolong the issue by asking the House of Commons to challenge the Lords’ vote.”

Andrea Minichiello Williams, director of Christian Concern For Our Nation, also praised Monday’s vote. “This is a great day for religious liberty in the United Kingdom. We are thankful that the law has not been changed and the freedom of churches to control their own affairs has not been restricted any further.

“The results show what can happen when Christians pray and take action. Let us be encouraged that even in an increasingly secular society, the voice of the Church can still be heard.”

Harriet Harman, whose name is attached to the Equality Bill, may decide to force the bill through the House of Commons or revert to an EU directive prohibiting discrimination in the workplace on the grounds of religion or belief, disability, age or sexual orientation.