Labour’s cunning plan for childcare: putting a bit of business Sharon Ellul Bonici’s way
Failed Labour MEP candidate and No2EU campaigner Sharon Ellul Bonici lives in Belgium, where she and husband Kev ride the gravy train.
But she continues to maintain a business in Malta with her sister Carol Ellul. It’s a childcare centre business called Stepping Stones.
Now, a massive business opportunity awaits. Five hundred jobs in childcare, all bankrolled by the state, in private childcare centres. This is what Muscat calls a public-private partnership.
Vote Labour. Ghax jahasra, dawk m’ghandomx evil click.
Labour leader Joseph Muscat with Stepping Stones childcare centre managing director, failed Labour MEP candidate and NO2EU campaigner Sharon Ellul Bonici.
Sharon doesn’t like ‘nannu Gonz’ , even though she’s married to a man not much younger than he is, and she’s no spring chicken herself.
14 Comments Comment
Leave a Comment
Who’s writing the blurb?
What a pity, they seem to have forgotten to list Kevin on that flyer, you know, the Official Nappy Changer and Resident Horror Story Reader.
Given her other cunning plan failed miserably, she’s eyeing Malta for her next venture.
Found this in one of the threads close to the UKIP, where somehow she had managed to put a stake on the party’s leadership soon after being engaged by the party in Brussels.
The UKIP was always for withdrawal from the EU. Sharon came up with an alliance with extreme right groups which a considerable number of UKIP members, albeit anti EU membership, disapproved of. The UKIP split down the middle because of this.
‘…GLW has a posted a memo from Tim Congdon re the creation of a new pan-European party to be called ‘European Alliance for Freedom’, and UKIP’s possible involvement in this project. Included in the memo is an e-mail from a Sharon Ellul Bonici stating that the European Alliance hopes to become strong in the 2014 Euro-elections, and that MEPs can join either as a Party or as individuals. Godfrey Bloom is listed among those who have confirmed their intention of doing so.
UKIP MEPs sought election on an unequivocal platform of withdrawal from the EU. It is what party members and supporters worked for, contributed funds for, and what the electorate voted for. ‘Campaign policies Euro elections 2009’, posted to UKIP’s website on 8 May 2009, stated: “The UK Independence Party believes that the UK should withdraw from the European Union”. ‘Campaign letter from UKIP Leader Nigel Farage MEP’, posted 11 May 2009, began: “The UK Independence Party is the only moderate, democratic party to advocate Britain’s withdrawal from the European Union”, and continued: “On June 4, please lend us your vote. Say No to European Union and help UKIP ensure that the future of our nation is decided by those of us who live here. There can surely no longer be any question that Britain would be better off out”.
Withdrawal from the EU was and still is UKIP’s policy and principle aim, and its MEPs have no mandate from the party or the electorate to sit in the European parliament and speak, vote on or represent anything else.
UKIP MEPs’ alliance with those of other, non-withdrawalist, parties in their EP group has always been contentious, but the nature of EP groupings is a loose one whereby the parliament’s rules assume (but do not require proof of) political affinity between group members, unless they state otherwise. In addition, the EFD’s political platform is vague and allows its different delegations the freedom to vote as they see fit, a freedom which is taken full advantage of with other EFD members frequently voting in favour of motions on which UKIP’s MEPs abstain or vote against.
This will not apply to members of a pan-EU party, and those who join the European Alliance will not simply be ‘assumed’ to have political affinity. In order to be approved as a political party and granted EP funding they will have to agree common objectives and draw up a political programme to work to, which they will have to submit with their funding application. Any change to that programme must be notified to the parliament or the funding will be suspended.
None of the parties or individuals named in the Bonici e-mail, other than Godfrey Bloom, are withdrawalists. They are reformists who wish to remain in the EU and whose political programme will reflect that intention. Even the name adopted by the new party makes no reference to independence or anything else that might suggest withdrawal. Indeed, a European Alliance for Freedom does no more than echo the EU’s own description of itself as ‘an area of freedom, security and justice’. Any UKIP MEPs joining this party will in effect have crossed the floor to pursue political objectives for which they have no mandate.
They cannot in these circumstances continue to be regarded as UKIP MEPs, and for the party to keep faith with its members and its electorate it will have to expel any MEP who joins the European Alliance for Freedom.
Those who promote joining a pan-European party as a means of acquiring large amounts of EU funding are careful to avoid mentioning the cost attached to membership of such a party before this funding can be accessed. What will the membership fee amount to, and how will it be calculated? As a percentage of UKIP members’ existing party subscriptions? As an extra sum levied on members? Or by some other formula?
Certainly there will have to be some contribution from UKIP if it decides to join the European Alliance. EU regulations stipulate that a maximum 85% of an EU-party’s budget can be provided by EU funding, but the remaining 15% must be contributed by the party itself from other sources. Those sources are not allowed to include donations from EP political groups or donations above 12,000 euros from any individual supporter, so, depending on how much EU funding the European Alliance qualifies for, a further sum will have to be provided by the national parties which make up the Alliance.
How much of this sum will have to be contributed by UKIP depends on whether it is divided equally between the constituent parties. That seems unlikely, as it would be disproportionate for an organisation such as Germany’s tiny Stroppy Citizens’ Party (BiW) to have to pay as much as a party with thousands of members and several MEPs. As the Alliance member with the largest number of MEPs UKIP could reasonably expect to have to contribute the lion’s share of a minimum 15% of the Alliance’s total budget.
‘Minimum’ because EU regulations allow the constituent parties to provide up to 40% of their EU party budget, thus enabling parties that qualify for only a relatively small amount of funding to supply from their own resources the rest of what they need to operate on an EU-wide scale. The European Alliance would get an equal share with other EU parties of 15% of the total EU funding pot, and a share of the remaining 85% in proportion to the number of MEPs it has, so as one of the smaller parties it is likely that it would have to contribute nearer 40% of its budget itself. How much of that would be required from UKIP?…’
Which may explain why her alliance was registered in Sammut’s office. Too bad the EU’s starting to withdraw any funding for these impromptu groups following a consistent pattern of embezzlement discovered in the political formations forming these alliances.
From the alliance’s wikipedia description,
‘……The European Alliance for Freedom (EAF) is a pan-European political party of right-wing Eurosceptics. It was founded in late 2010, the party was recognised by the European Parliament in 2011.Unlike in other pan-European parties, the members of the Alliance are not national parties but individuals.
The headquarters of the Alliance are in Birkirkara, Malta. President of the organisation is Franz Obermayr from Austria,vice presidents are the Fleming Philip Claeys and the French Marie Le Pen. The Secretary-General is Sharon Ellul-Bonici from Malta.
The EAF was awarded a grant by European Parliament for 2011 of, at most, €372,753. In 2012 the EP’s maximal grant dropped to €360 455.
The party’s affiliated political foundation is the European Foundation for Freedom…..’
The foundation is an excuse to set up another organisation eligible for funding.
Among the members of Sharon’s alliance are,
The Freedom Party of Austria, A far right party owned by a billionaire with his cash in Switzerland,
Vlaams Belang, Belgian far right, essentially the renamed Vlaams Blok, after it was prohibited from contesting elections following ‘repeated incitement to racial discrimination’
Marie Le Pen of the French National Front. French fascists.
Need I say more?
We’ll have the country’s tots goosestepping around the house after a day at childcare.
From anti-EU to EU-sceptic onto the far right; a natural evolution for those who won’t acknowledge the European project.
All she’s been through is the weird end of the EU. Kev’s paranoia wasn’t a coincidence.
Oh, so the Labour Party is offering something else for free. Now it’s free childcare. Who is going to pay for this? The tax payer, because nothing is free in the world and somebody has to pay for it.
Will they be carrying out a social impact assessment on this one?
Would like to see how it affects the distribution of income towards the likes of Sharon NO2EU Ellul Bonici.
Il-‘klikka’ hemm hi.
Who mentioned il-klikka?
Tghid b’direct order johrog dan ukoll?
Has Sharon Ellul Bonici informed the administration of the European Parliament of this second job and second source of income, as she is obliged to?
So my little deduction was correct then?
“Hbieb tal-hbieb.”
“Barunijiet.”
Will this blog entry prompt a return of Kevvy-wevvy?
Free tablets now as well. Another beneficiary perhaps ?
Wonder if she set up the childcare centre with a grant from an EU fund programme too?