Brexit party MEPs abstain from a vote calling for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe to be freed

[Mistigri]

Can any of the Brexit party supporting leavers on here tell us why?

I was already aware that de Lucy had excused herself from joining the vote by saying it was action not words that were required, hence my email to the MEPs including a question asking what 'action' they were taking, given their view that 'words were not enough'. How anyone could stand there and make that speech and then abstain from voting for the resolution is beyond me.

Just awful dreadful people. I’d say the worst, but actually I think the momentum gobshites trying to get rid of Tom Watson May be worse.
It’s a close run thing.

How anyone could stand there and make that speech and then abstain from voting for the resolution is beyond me

If you know about dictatorships then you will know why the vote will not make a jot of difference.

The EU need to stop trading with Iran but they wont as they are currently, for all intense and purposes, being blackmailed by them. They are dellusional if they think they can take that vote and say to the Ayatollah ‘we expect you to do something about how you treat the women of your country and can you release our citizens from prison’ it’s not going to work. The E.U. need to stop trading with Iran but they won’t/can’t therefore, nothing will change.

They like to be seen to be doing something positive and humanitarian but at the same time will still pump trade and €€€€ through the country supporting a regime that they don’t agree with.

In the EUs quest for global dominance they don't seem to be learning that if you do a deal with the devil (a dictator) when it goes pear shaped a coffee and a chat is not going to cut it!

EU's quest for global dominance you believe that shite you're spouting?

I'm beginning to think the Brexit Party could ask their voters to swing around lampposts with their knickers on their head and they'd do it.

An EU trade deal with a dictator whose country has one of the the worst records for human rights? But hey that’s ok because we will get cheaper clothes and gadgets, to hell with working conditions.

A trade deal with a dictator that’s going to encourage the destruction of the rainforest? But hey that’s ok because we will get cheaper beef/chicken which we don’t need and the E.U. can palm off their German diesel cars that no one else’s wants whilst preaching about the environment.

Preach about cultural and ethnic diversity whilst having the least ethnically diverse parliament in the developed world.

I'm beginning to think the EU could ask their voters to swing around lampposts with their knickers on their head and they'd do it

EU's quest for global dominance

Prove to me otherwise.

chocolate well, a lot of Leavers seem to think it's great that we're selling shedloads of arms to the Saudis so they can continue killing civilians in the Yemen. Pot, kettle. Both things are bad. Both things should be called out. Within that framework, there are other causes which matter. The Brexit Party have put themselves firmly in the 'don't give a shit about human beings' corner with this abstention.

Of course the vote won't achieve anything. Lots of protests don't achieve anything either. That isn't a reason to just go 'oh well'.

EU's quest for global dominance

Prove to me otherwise.

We don't need to. The convention is that the person making the statement, in your case that the EU is on a quest for global dominance, bears the responsibility for proving that this statement is correct.

EU's quest for global dominance
Prove to me otherwise.

That's not how it works Time, you made the statement, it is up to you to prove it's true. Alternatively, you could just swing around a lamppost with your knickers on your head for Brexit.

Have I not just given you three examples where trade and €€€ means more than human rights and the environment. Party on if that’s your thing but it ain’t mine.

I sometimes feel like I would like to take my knickers and swing them round the heads of some remainers, all for the Brexit cause

Unfortunately trade and money mean more to most/all countries than civil rights. How exactly does it prove your assertion that the EU is on a quest for global dominance Time?

By your logic, all countries are out for global dominance. Because, as Dione has pointed out, all countries prioritise trade and money above civil rights. So please explain in what sense the EU is worse/more global dominance oriented than other countries or trading blocks in the world?

Please do keep the pants on.

“Have I not just given you three examples where trade and €€€ means more than human rights and the environment.”

No, I can’t see them; can you repeat them, please?

So in your world it’s ok for money to trump human rights, civil rights and the environment?

So please explain in what sense the EU is worse/more global dominance oriented than other countries or trading blocks in the world

Unless the individual country is a superpower they will not achieve global dominance.
The EU should be setting a precedent by not dealing with these countries, they don’t need to. They can’t spout hot air about the environment and human rights and in the same breath do something completely contrary to that. I would give them a lot more respect if they took that stance but of course they won’t because €€€ talks.

www.google.co.uk/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/world/2018/sep/12/juncker-calls-on-eu-to-seize-chance-to-become-major-sovereign-power

I had wrote something a lot longer but lost it so you will have to have the abridged version.

And yes pointy my pants are still very much on.

Tanith- 13.49pm post.

Going to watch my DDs dancing comp now so you will have to hold fire on replies.

OK, so now it's perfectly OK for the Brexit Party not to express any kind of support for Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe because the EU isn't sufficiently saintly and morally superior to all other nations. And by your logic, the EU might as well do absolutely nothing about the environment and human rights, because it is insufficiently perfect to be allowed to do those things. Okay...

And meanwhile the Brexit Party are being reasonable and are taking a shining moral stance in refusing to express support for a British citizen whom they are supposed to be representing as a UK presence in the EU party. That's all fine with you.

To each their own, I guess.

Do you believe that there should be no trading or power blocks in the world and that all nations should be islands unto themselves?

Pointy - that’s quite a twist going on there.

Pointy's logic looks completely right to me. You look like the twisted one chocolate.

And meanwhile the Brexit Party are being reasonable and are taking a shining moral stance in refusing to express support for a British citizen whom they are supposed to be representing as a UK presence in the EU party

I agree with onalong especially the above

And meanwhile the Brexit Party are being reasonable and are taking a shining moral stance in refusing to express support for a British citizen whom they are supposed to be representing as a UK presence in the EU party

I never said they were taking a shining moral stance. The Brexit Party shouldn’t even be in existence, never mind having 26 seats and representing the UK. Yet here we are.

They abstained they didn’t vote against it - abstaining in votes seems to be in vogue at the moment.

Don’t think I’m twisted, but I will ask around and see what the general consensus is!

Time i respect your environmental views and it looks like the EU/Brazil FTA isn't going to happen and rightly so for a variety of reasons but i wonder how the UKs ethics will play out as we seek new FTA's?
Our record on saudi arms sales is nothing short of criminal.

Iran "might" listen to the EU because they want to split the US and EU, its already happened of the Nuclear deal, sanctions haven't achieved anything, neither has anything else!

Further sanctions will just harden Iran's resolve, make war more likely not less and that will make Brexit seem like a picnic.

If anyone was going to vote for a BXP candidate, perhaps you should look carefully about their policies, not just brexit, they could be in coalition for the next 5 years.

chocolate they shouldn't have abstained. They managed to get off their butts for long enough to oppose the extension - fair enough, that's what they're about. But they do not have a policy of consistently abstaining on all votes - so why abstain on this one, which was about protesting the treatment of a British citizen?

You come across as a Brexit party apologist on this issue.

Iran "might" listen to the EU because they want to split the US and EU, its already happened of the Nuclear deal, sanctions haven't achieved anything, neither has anything else!

It’s a big might though, the US have already pulled out, the jist of the situation now being Iran are calling the shots and saying the EU have to try and cover the shortfall or else we will accelerate our nuclear programme. I think they might be out of their depth now.

If anyone was going to vote for a BXP candidate, perhaps you should look carefully about their policies, not just brexit, they could be in coalition for the next 5 years.

Oh I will be but I don’t think they have any yet do they?

I have to say that over the last three years there have been several ironic situations wrt Brexit and that one would be up there vying for No.1 spot. What a state of affairs!

Of course it's a big might but i'd rather try than plunge us all into what will probably be a 3rd world war.

Iran is significantly more powerful than Iraq so a conflict with Saudi, could drag in the US and Europe/NATO, plus create another ISIS only on steroids.

I thought BXP had chosen their GE candidates? Widecombe is standing in a Plymouth seat and getting a lot of support, especially from women, which given her views is quite astounding.

Makes me wonder whether we need restrictions and/or a MCA before being allowed to vote.