HAVE A VERY HAPPY INDEPENDENCE DAY!
Lords Economic Affairs Committee backs UKIP’s case against HS2
Published Mar 25, 2015
An influential report condemning the controversial HS2 project was welcomed today by UKIP Deputy Leader Paul Nuttall MEP and UKIP Transport Spokesman Jill Seymour MEP.
The House of Lords Economic Committee’s report says that the government has no convincing case for the HS2 project.
“Hooray for this report which echoes what UKIP has been saying for years – HS2 is a white elephant vanity scheme, which we can neither afford and definitely do not need or want,” said Paul Nuttall.
“UKIP says no to HS2 and I am delighted, though not optimistic that it will make any difference, that the Peers also want to see it hit the buffers,” added Mr Nuttall.
In addition, UKIP Transport spokesman Jill Seymour said: “We warmly welcome the House of Lords comments – but we didn’t need them to tell us that there’s no convincing case for this multi-million pound white elephant.
“We’ve known this all along. UKIP would scrap the HS2 scheme immediately because it is a flawed EU vanity project and a national disgrace.
“It has no business case, as it will leave our country riddled with escalating debt. Never mind how many people’s lives and communities it will destroy, ripping up graveyards and ancient woodlands”.
“I do not want to see our precious environment ruined by this destructive rail line,
“There are unanswered questions on plans and costs, yet it is still moving forward against public wishes. It will only be supporting a minority, at the expense of the majority.”
“How much money needs to be thrown at this until common sense prevails and HS2 is scrapped”.
Mrs Seymour added: “What passengers want is an affordable, comfortable, reliable and efficient rail network system that delivers from south to north, and east to west.
“We already have a network in place, but it is desperate for improvement, alternative options have been offered at much less cost.
“The victims of HS2 are in total despair and have not been awarded adequate compensation.”