Subscribe to our feed
Follow us on twitterACTA Supporters - UKIP named and shamed
10th March 2010 17:06 | by Andrew Robinson
Update 2: Statement from UKIP added to the end of the article.
Update: Three Netherlands MEPs have changed their vote, leaving UKIP as the ONLY party that supports ACTA.
Opposition to the secret ACTA treaty is spreading like wildfire. Today the members of the European Parliament had their say, as on a resolution against the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, arguing that it flouts agreed EU laws on counterfeiting and piracy online. MEPs will go to the Court of Justice if the EU does not reject the leaked proposals which include draconian powers to censor the internet and disconnect net connections.
The result was a massive landslide in favour of open government and internet freedom. 636 MEPs were on the side of freedom, and just 10 voted in favour of ACTA.
I can now name and shame those 10, people who were elected to represent us, but who want us to be governed by a secret worldwide clique where the RIAA call the shots and politicians are too scared to tell the public what they are signing us up to. The list in full is:
- Nigel Farage (United Kingdom, UKIP)
- Marta Andreasen (United Kingdom, UKIP)
- Stuart Agnew (United Kingdom, UKIP)
- Gerard Batten (United Kingdom, UKIP)
- John Bufton (United Kingdom, UKIP)
- Trevor Colman (United Kingdom, UKIP)
- The Earl of Dartmouth (United Kingdom, UKIP)
- Mike Nattrass (United Kingdom, UKIP)
- Paul Nuttall (United Kingdom, UKIP)
- Nicole Sinclaire (United Kingdom, UKIP)
Just 16 politicians couldn't make their minds up and abstained. They include:
- Diane Dodds (Northern Ireland, Democratic Unionist Party)
- Nick Griffin (United Kingdom, BNP)
- Andrew Henry William Brons (United Kingdom, BNP)
I am, quite simply, disgusted.
If those names make you feel ashamed to be British, you can do something about it right now. Join the Pirate Party UK, make a donation, come forwards as a candidate for us. Make sure your voice is heard.
The Pirate Party UK's press release:
UKIP response
A UKIP representative
"Whilst we as a group voted against the ACTA Resolution on Wednesday 10th March 2010, we did so on the principle that the ACTA Treaty itself should not exist in any form. It is a catastrophic violation of individual private property. Had we voted to support the Resolution, we would be recognising the existence of such legislation and on that basis we decided not to recognise the Treaty."
34 comments
Mar 10 2010 05:03 by scuzzmonkey
heh, trust UKIP.
Mar 10 2010 05:03 by glambert
That's what we get for voting for them ey? Not that I voted for them, but they were 2nd in the voting results.
Mar 10 2010 05:03 by cc
Shame on UKIP.I notice there's a press release attached now. Was that sent out to the media?
Mar 10 2010 06:03 by cabalamat
I thought UKIP stood for United Kingdom Independence Party, but apparently it now means United Kingdom Grovellingly Subservient To Foreign Trade Negotiators And Corporate Interests Party. I cannot imagine the average UKIP voter supports this stance, and we should remind UKIP supporters of it at every opportunity.As for the BNP, for a supposedly "nationalist" party to abstain on a measure that's so clearly in the national interest, that's inexplicable. They're not even doing it for the bribes, since I doubt if Big Media would touch them with a barge pole.
Mar 10 2010 06:03 by scuzzmonkey
the bnp abstained....
Mar 10 2010 06:03 by peterh
I can explain:UKIP has a policy of voting 'no' on every European Parliament vote, on principle. In this case, the vote was a resolution opposing aspects of ACTA and demanding the details of negotiations be made public. So in this case 'yes' to the vote meant 'no' to ACTA. Of course, UKIP didn't care, and pushed their 'no' button once again - shooting themselves in the foot by effectively voting in favour of undemocratic European legislation and making the 'UKIP saves your iPod' guys on facebook look really daft.
UKIP don't really stand for anything beside vague nationalism; their supporters are deluding themselves if they think they are getting a party that will actually work to prevent abuse in the European government, instead of just blindly protesting everything it does.
Mar 10 2010 07:03 by cabalamat
peterh wrote: UKIP has a policy of voting 'no' on every European Parliament vote, on principle. In this case, the vote was a resolution opposing aspects of ACTA and demanding the details of negotiations be made public. So in this case 'yes' to the vote meant 'no' to ACTA. Of course, UKIP didn't care, and pushed their 'no' button once again - shooting themselves in the foot by effectively voting in favour of undemocratic European legislation and making the 'UKIP saves your iPod' guys on facebook look really daft.
It is really daft. And this is wonderful ammunition to use to persuade UKIP supporters that PPUK cares more about their interests than UKIP does.
Incidently is 'UKIP saves your iPod' an actual FB group? I couldn't find it. I do think it would be interesting to publicise this on UKIP groups on FB.
Mar 10 2010 07:03 by zag
Really shocked that they are from the UK and would vote this way.
Mar 10 2010 07:03 by cc
cabalamat wrote: Incidently is 'UKIP saves your iPod' an actual FB group? I couldn't find it. I do think it would be interesting to publicise this on UKIP groups on FB.
Found it: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=66772661637
It's called "UKIP save our iPods". It says: "The EU supports the ACTA Treaty ... The Conservatives, Lib Dems, Labour and Green Party all support the EU, and thus cannot oppose the EU’s control over this treaty. Only UKIP opposes it."
Mar 10 2010 08:03 by cabalamat
cc wrote: It says: "The EU supports the ACTA Treaty ... The Conservatives, Lib Dems, Labour and Green Party all support the EU, and thus cannot oppose the EU’s control over this treaty. Only UKIP opposes it."
LOL. You might want to read http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wal ... 6772661637 and http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=9 ... opic=14230
Mar 10 2010 08:03 by Henry
Doesn't surprise me that the other party to vote in favor was none other than Geert Wilders' Party For Freedom although I am surprised that the BNP abstained.
Mar 10 2010 08:03 by cc
Nice. 
With this, shame on them twice.
Mar 10 2010 08:03 by Duke
henry wrote: although I am surprised that the BNP abstained.
Really? You are surprised that the two BNPers either couldn't be bothered to show up to vote or didn't have a clue what the vote was about so abstained?
Mar 10 2010 08:03 by Henry
duke wrote: Really? You are surprised that the two BNPers either couldn't be bothered to show up to vote or didn't have a clue what the vote was about so abstained?
In that respect no. I'm a follower of the Hope Not Hate so I know exactly what they are like (Lazy, unorganized and their poor track record for attending local council meetings to say the very least) and considering their beliefs, I would have thought that would have voted in favour of ACTA but if they didn't even have a clue to what ACTA is like you said then it's not surprising at all.
Mar 10 2010 09:03 by Sharkz
Man they must be really stupid...
Mar 10 2010 10:03 by Andy_R
I'm told that the 3 PPV MEPs have changed sides, and now it's only UKIP that is against freedom, democracy and openness in government.
Mar 10 2010 10:03 by Henry
Was there any reason given?
Mar 10 2010 10:03 by scuzzmonkey
henry wrote: Was there any reason given?
by UKIP?
does there need to be one? lol.
Mar 10 2010 10:03 by Henry
scuzzmonkey wrote: by UKIP?
does there need to be one? lol.
ShouId've quoted Andy. I meant about why the PPV suddenly changed their vote. Not that it matters much though.
Mar 11 2010 08:03 by mds84
As I understand it, everyone else didn't reject ACTA, they just didn't approve of the secrecy.
Mar 11 2010 08:03 by cc
They also completely ruled out 3 strikes (as suggested by the Pirate Party) and expressed strong disapproval of the idea of searching or confiscating laptops at customs. That's actually a lot!
Mar 11 2010 12:03 by Henry
cabalamat wrote: LOL. You might want to read http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wal ... 6772661637 and http://www.facebook.com/topic.php?uid=9 ... opic=14230
The post made on the "UKIP Save our iPods" wall has been removed now btw. The other post is still there though
Mar 11 2010 12:03 by VJ
I notice that Caroline Lucas didn't vote either. Wonder what happened there? The Other Greens voted for though.
Mar 11 2010 12:03 by alex_brett
Isn't ironic that a party ostensibly in favour of independence is also in favour of coalitions of multi-national corporations and foreign powers laying out draconian laws?
Mar 11 2010 12:03 by VJ
alex_brett wrote: Isn't ironic that a party ostensibly in favour of independence is also in favour of coalitions of multi-national corporations and foreign powers laying out draconian laws?
I've just emailed one of them to explain their position; I'm also going to tell everyone I know that UKIP support secrecy, as I live in a marginal seat where they usually put up candidates at all elections, it should help hit them where it hurts: in the ballot box.
Mar 11 2010 03:03 by peterh
The (quite polite) comment I left on the 'UKIP save our ipods' facebook group has been deleted. The commend I made on the blog that spawned the facebook group has, what a surprise, not passed moderation. I won't bother commenting on the guys youtube video either as I can predict the response.None of this 'UKIP are against ACTA' groups have had the intellectual honesty to admit the party they thought would protect them from malignant European legislation has gone and done the exact opposite, and for idiotic reasons. They just frantically delete the comments pointing out the facts of the matter. This to me is scandalous; UKIPs alleged reason for existing has been exposed as fraudulent and this can only lead a person to suspect that the reasons others have given for the parties existence (i.e. its a front for the far-right) might be true. Censoring the truth about their MEPs voting habits hardly does anything to dispell that impression.
Mar 11 2010 03:03 by allanclloyds
UKIP have put up a response here with some slightly contorted logic:http://www.ukipmeps.org/mypage_11_ExpVote.html
"Whilst we as a group voted against the ACTA Resolution on Wednesday 10th March 2010, we did so on the principle that the ACTA Treaty itself should not exist in any form. It is a catastrophic violation of individual private property. Had we voted to support the Resolution, we would be recognising the existence of such legislation and on that basis we decided not to recognise the Treaty."
Mar 11 2010 03:03 by cc
allanclloyds wrote: "Whilst we as a group voted against the ACTA Resolution on Wednesday 10th March 2010, we did so on the principle that the ACTA Treaty itself should not exist in any form. It is a catastrophic violation of individual private property. Had we voted to support the Resolution, we would be recognising the existence of such legislation and on that basis we decided not to recognise the Treaty."
So, they are not against ACTA, they are against free speech (by censoring fair comments and criticism) and they are also against how democracy works (by abusing their right to vote and then trying to justify it). Great. "Disgusted" is the least I would say about them!
Mar 11 2010 03:03 by allanclloyds
I just don't think they've thought out their position properly.The fact is ACTA exists whether we like it or not. And for UKIP, the EU exists whether they like it or not. They seem to have squared participating in the European Parliament with their opposition to it so why they can't square supporting a resolution against ACTA in the same fashion I can't quite fathom.
I got this response on Twitter from @HarryAldridge (UK Independence Party PPC for Horsham) to that point:
"Indeed. However this was a resolution which holds no force as i understand it. If it comes to voting against it we will i suppose."
http://twitter.com/HarryAldridge/status/10327607279
Mar 11 2010 04:03 by peterh
This is the blog of the cretin who is trying to suppress any report of the duplicity of UKIP:http://michaelmcmanusukip.blogspot.com/
I particularly like the bit where he refers to voters as 'cattle'. Charming fellow. He also lists one of his interests as 'crytozoology'
Mar 11 2010 04:03 by cc
The BNP was able to change their vote late -- should we perhaps pressure these dudes to do the same thing?
Mar 11 2010 04:03 by rancidpunk
It's an obscure argument to use that they don't recognise a treaty that doesn't exist yet, why not join the fight against it's creation or would actually participating in the EU process be seen by UKIP as being too pro-EU. If so, why not boycott theirs seats on the same principle. Cynics might say that you don't get paid if you don't take your seat.
Mar 11 2010 04:03 by cc
rancidpunk wrote: If so, why not boycott theirs seats on the same principle.
It just occurred to me these guys have more seats in the EU parliament than the Lib Dems... we could use those seats, and these guys seem to be making themselves easy targets.
Mar 17 2010 12:03 by Henry
cc wrote: It just occurred to me these guys have more seats in the EU parliament than the Lib Dems... we could use those seats, and these guys seem to be making themselves easy targets.
Both parties now hold 12 seats each, after Nikki Sinclaire had her UKIP whip withdrawn and Edward McMillan-Scott defected to the Lib Dems from the Conservatives.