UKIP candidate and occasional commenter on this blog, Tallbloke, returned here today to leave a ‘told you so’ comment on a blog post where we said that Farage’s comments on the floods indicate UKIP has abandoned its anti-EU role, which dates back to 9th February.
The comment he linked to in his latest contribution was this one. As it would not be spotted by most readers, we felt it only fair to give it a good airing. Along with the reply that has been left to the comment, which is reproduced below…
Nice to see you back here after chickening out of answering the question here. But now you’re back, don’t be silly, Rog.
Farage has deliberately avoided linking the EU to a number of consequences of Brussels governance over the last year. His shortsighted call for a public inquiry has seen him change his narrative. He has now chosen to define this mythical inquiry in terms of abandoning dredging, but did not do so previously as you will see in his quote below. In fact even your previous comment makes yet a different case for a public inquiry, so it’s not actually what you said at all. In any case he has been caught on the hop by Clegg, and his refusal to immediately accept the offer of a debate has undermined confidence in him.
For clarity, do tell us, why is an inquiry necessary? Is it to explore dredging, or is it to help resolve UKIP’s internal confusion and lack of knowledge? The previous question asking you just what the UKIP line actually is, still stands for reasons the quotes below make all too clear.
1. ‘Ms Reding’s visit took place at the same time as the consequences of heavy rainfall compounded by the effect of EU regulations, have brought about widespread flooding, suffering and the destruction of property.
‘The evidence is that EU directives put wildlife before people. It is starting to be clear that DEFRA and the Environment Agency have been zealous in implementing EU directives’
– William Dartmouth
2. ‘Well it’s not Brussels’ fault is it?’
– Lisa Duffy
3. ‘I don’t know the truth of the extent to which the Environment Agency is now bound by European Union rules and laws. I just don’t know. That’s why we need to have a public inquiry.’
– Nigel Farage
So which is it? Let’s see if you can answer without re-writing history again.
Just so you know, should an inquiry be held it will be chaired by an on-message appointee, the terms of reference will not address what Farage has belatedly chosen to call for, the witnesses will be chosen so as to minimise any adverse reference to the EU and the findings will not change EU laws one iota. So what exactly does Farage think he will achieve? It’s as meaningless as his call for a civil defence corps.
It is just more badly thought out, scattergun rhetoric as he speaks first then tries to decide what he meant by it later, while people like you interpret in a myriad of different ways and put your own spin on it, irrespective of what was actually said.
We await the reply with interest…