Now he spoke rudely, of that there is no doubt, but the approach of Mr Schultz is indeed that of one that believes in,
"One country, one people, and three presidents"However having refused to apologise he was ordered out of the cahmber, at 9.35 in the morning. At that point the rules state that he will be dealt with by the Preseidenta nd/or the bureau.
This diod not happen and McMillan-Scott at the time of the vote hours later demanded again a new apology, and used his refusal as a pretext to have him blocked from voting in a dubious 'soviet style' procedure where he was ordered to leave after a 'Supreme Soviet' style vote..
This was beyond the powers of the chair and wrong. MacMillan-Scott should apologise.
8 comments:
Whatever the rights or wrongs of the way Mr McMillan-Scott handled the situation, I really don't think you can dismiss Mr Bloom's comments with "he spoke rudely". That doesn't even come close.
Whatever you think of his "rudeness", he at least spoke the truth.
Invoking Nazi slogans to insult someone during a debate is extremely rude and unparliamentary.
UKIP seemed to have accepted this point somewhat, so why didn't Mr Bloom apologise? Apologising doesn't mean that he has to suddenly agree with the S&D, or change his opinion - indeed he could say "while I'm staunchly against federalism, etc, etc, what I said was uncalled for and I apologise."
Does UKIP think that such comments don't require an apology? Or is Mr Bloom going it alone here, despite outward support from the party?
Setting aside the application of the rules debate, I can't see how "you didn't throw them out" is a good excuse not to apologise for what has been admitted by UKIP were poorly judged comments.
Of course, an apology set to Soviet music doesn't have the same impact as the image of an MEP being lead out of the chamber.
"Im sorry you dirty fascist totalitarian bastard while im staunchly against you attempting to make my sovereign nation state part of your federalist Europe etc,etc,what i said was uncalled for and i apologise."
Why the hell do we have to be polite in the talking-shop of the occupying alien force? They won't and don't give us any quarter. They won't apologise for the old people they kill who can't pay their heating bills inflated by EU climate robbery. They aren't sorry about stripping the wealth from the British middle class to pay for the dystopia that they will rule from their gleaming ministry towers. They won't apologise when people finally wake up to realise that they could vote against the EU if they could but reject the criminal LibLabCon - when that day comes, they won't let us vote; such is their determination to rule despotically. All the vales will slip and they will just send in the EU gestapo.
Of course, I understand that Conservatroids are used to their people being good little collaborators who extend such courtesies to the invader as addressing the parliament in its official language (a la the chief collaborator Hannan), so Bloom is naturally going to offend their sensibilities.
Hmm... Even as insults go, it's not exactly the heights of wit, is it? Bloom would have been sent out like a flash if he'd carried on like that in the House of Commons. Yelling "Ein Reich, ein Volk, ein Führer!" whilst another MEP is making a speech is just boorish. I can't find instances of Schulz behaving that badly.
@Eurogblin (sic).
You're really not trying hard enough:
http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/2991
Apologise? That's in the old world. Welcome to the new reality - we spit on political correctness! Yes, Schulz, you are a socialist fascist. After all, Mussolini himself came from the socialist fold, and Goebbels described the ideology of the National Socialists as close to Bolshevism (before the war). The only difference is that the nazis were nationalists while the Soviets were supra-nationalists.
So what's wrong with describing Schulz as a socialist fascist for wanting Ein EU Volk, Ein EU Reich und Ein EU Fuhrer?
Post a Comment