Scrap subsidies for new wind farms

The UK should stop giving new subsidies for wind farms, according to UKIP’s North East MEP, Jonathan Arnott.

The call comes following the news that the anti-wind farm, Middleton Burn Action group, were barred from the premises of a public exhibition by a wind farm developer.

The community organisation were barred from the building where the organisation’s exhibition was set to take place, with the company claiming that some of its ‘large’ members had previously acted in an intimidating fashion.

The group has dismissed the accusation and slammed the company’s decision to bar the group from the property, maintaining it will take up a place outside the venue.

Arnott, UKIP’s local Euro MP, said “Taxpayers are still paying vast sums on top of their electricity bills to fund wind turbines across the UK. These subsidies, given to wealthy landowners and big corporations, have a devastating effect on pensioners and low income families in our region who will face the stark choice this winter between heating and eating.”

Middleton Burn Ltd is proposing to erect fourteen 125m turbines at its site in Belford, Northumberland.

The turbines would be six times the height of the Angel of the North.

Arnott added “By driving up energy costs, reducing competitiveness and deterring investment, a recent report highlights that for every one ‘green job’ created, four are destroyed elsewhere in the economy. Wind turbines are a hugely inefficient energy source which the taxpayer simply doesn’t get value for money from. We should scrap subsidies for wind farms at the earliest opportunity.”

Letter – We must ensure that we have a stable energy supply

Dear Editor,

We have been warned about the spare capacity that will be available for the national grid this winter – again.  We get this warning year after year and the issue seems to be getting worse rather than better.

We must be careful with what we use, ensuring we do not waste energy, but this issue goes much deeper than that.

We need to examine our energy infrastructure and ensure that the money we invest in this is not wasted. We must stop lavishing huge amounts of investment on ineffective windfarms whilst we have to restart outdated, mothballed power stations to ensure the lights stay on.

We need a thorough, sensible discussion about how we get our power, not just on fracking, solar and wind, but also on new; cleaner coal power stations and the expansion of nuclear facilities.  Some questions may prove controversial, but they should still be asked.

For too long politicians have been avoiding this question and kicking it down the road, whilst repeatedly patching up the broken dam. Enough of this, we need to develop and invest in a long term solution before it is too late.

 

Jonathan Arnott MEP

UKIP, North East

Letter – We must stop funding oppressive foreign governments

Dear Editor,
Ethiopian state security forces have tortured, raped and burnt more than 5,000 people.  Meanwhile, our government has given Ethiopia over one billion pounds and the country is the second largest beneficiary of British aid.

This is another example of how badly managed our Aid budget is. We must ensure the money we give makes a genuine difference, rather than being handed to oppressive or corrupt governments and a list of world powers that recently has included India, Russia and Argentina.

Globally, people face crisis, disease and poverty everyday. Even here in the UK, in these cold winter months, millions of our most vulnerable people are faced with the choice of heating or eating.  Aid can be a positive thing if we make sure the resources are used where they are needed most, so they have the best possible impact.

We need a full, comprehensive review of our foreign aid budget – both into how much is spent and where it is spent.   We must ensure that taxpayer’s money is not given to corrupt foreign governments who torture their own people.

 

Jonathan Arnott MEP

UKIP, North East

Commission Question – Could the Commission provide details of the composition of working groups which advise it on legislation?

Question to the Council for written answer:

 

Could the Commission provide details of the composition of working groups which advise it on legislation?

 

Answer given by Mr Barroso on behalf of the Commission (30.10.2014):

The Register of Commission expert groups and other similar entities (http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regexpert/index.cfm) provides for information on the composition of each entity published therein. Individual groups can be easily identified via both a quick and advanced search facility.

Letter – A response to yet more Labour lies about UKIP

Dear Editor,

 

It saddens me that yet again the Labour Party can offer your readers no more than scaremongering and lies about UKIP.

They talk about commitment to infrastructure, but just like under the Tories, Labour oversaw years of underinvestment into our roads and railways.  Just last week, Labour’s Shadow Transport Minister cast doubt on whether a Labour government would dual the A1.

Labour talk about defending and improving the NHS, yet it declined massively under Labour mismanagement and it was Labour governments that began to privatise it though the Private Finance Initiative.

Labour often lie about UKIP seeking to charge you to see a doctor, yet our “policies for people” document clearly states that UKIP will not charge you to see your GP.   This accusation is particularly rich when you consider two leading Labour figures; Lord’s Winston and Warner recently called for charges to see a GP, Lord Winston helpfully suggested a £200 fee.

UKIP want to introduce real recall, to allow you to remove criminal, corrupt and inept politicians.  Sadly the Labour party did not trust the public with this power and voted against the bill en-masse.

I would implore you to look at the record of your local MP, look beyond the rhetoric and lies and see if they have truly put your best interests at heart, or if they just looked for the next pay slip and quango bonus.

 

Jonathan Arnott MEP

UKIP, North East

Commission Question – Can the Commission please explain what the consequences would be for the UK’s budget rebate from the EU in the event that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGAF) were mobilised in support of a project within the borders of the UK?

Question to the Council for written answer:

Can the Commission please explain what the consequences would be for the UK’s budget rebate from the EU in the event that the European Globalisation Adjustment Fund (EGAF) were mobilised in support of a project within the borders of the UK?

 

Answer given by Mr Andor on behalf of the Commission (27.10.2014):

As a general rule, the UK correction returns to the UK two thirds of the difference between the amounts paid in from its national budget to the EU budget and the amounts that are allocated to UK beneficiaries from the EU budget during its execution. Payments to the UK from the EGF increase the latter and as such decrease the UK rebate.

 

Commission Question – Could the Commission please provide information on what action it intends to take, or has already taken, in relation to Cypriot banks selling mortgages dishonestly?

Question to the Council for written answer:

Could the Commission please provide information on what action it intends to take, or has already taken, in relation to Cypriot banks selling mortgages dishonestly?

 

Answer given by Mr Katainen on behalf of the Commission:

The pending national court procedures will show whether the Cypriot banks have infringed potential duties to inform about certain risks of a loan contract, in particular with regard to loans in a foreign currency.

The Commission is aware that real estate purchasers in Cyprus, for various reasons, did not always receive the property title immediately after payment of the purchase price. Since 2011 such purchase agreements can be registered with the Cypriot Land Registry in order to increase legal certainty for the purchaser.

In order to work towards a sustainable solution, the Cypriot authorities committed, as part of the economic adjustment programme, to establish a task force that will develop recommendations in order to address this issue.

The Labour MP for Hartlepool is treating voters with contempt

Iain Wright MP has treated the people of Hartlepool with complete contempt by voting against the proposed amendment to the MPs recall bill, according to UKIP’s North East Euro MP, Jonathan Arnott.

The statement comes following the recent vote on Monday in the House of Commons in which MPs rejected the amendment by 340 to 166.

Under the government-backed plans there would only be a by-election if 10% of constituents signed a petition after the sitting MP is either sentenced to more than 12 months in jail, or banned from the Commons for more than 21 days.

Mr Goldsmith, MP for Richmond Park and North Kingston, however, had created a rival plan in which MPs would face a recall referendum if 5% of voters in a constituency sign a “notice of intent to recall”, and 20% then sign a “recall petition”.

Arnott said “It is blindingly obvious the reason Mr Wright, along with majority of the house, voted against this bill – because they have zero trust in the electorate.  He is once again proving that he is only in politics for himself and has no regard for the concept of democracy”.

Labour’s shadow justice secretary, Sadiq Khan, said the Labour Party wouldn’t vote for a system that could give vested interests power to kick out MPs simply because they dislike the way a politician has voted on controversial issues.

Arnott, who has his office based in the town, added “The people of Hartlepool have voted for Labour years, and consistently they’ve been let down like a cheap pair of braces. If the people of Hartlepool feel that their MP has let them down – they should have the ability to kick them out and choose someone else. The people are the bosses of politicians, the people pay the politician’s wages, and politicians need to realise they should be putting the people’s best interest to the top of their agenda.”