The current version being debated by UKIP!

“Should the UK Independence Party's MEPs join a European Political Party and a European Political Foundation as defined under Regulation EC 2004/2003?”

Ballot papers due with Independence magazine scheduled for Monday 18-Jul-2011.
Return before Monday 15-Aug-2011
Count 16-Aug-2011

Returning Officer Steve Allison

Party Applications to form PEPPs 30-Sep-2011

CONSIDER AESOP The Lion & The Fox:

The EU was failing and was corrupt. So they pretended to be handing out money, which was just a ruse to make the greedy come to help progress their scam, but the strings attached were binding if hard to see.
The EUroRealists also came to see the offer, but didn't join a PEPP wishing to deal with The EU from outside its political clutches.
The EU asked the EUroRealists why they didn't come in as it was so lavishly rewarded and comfortable living on bribes.
The EUroRealists replied, 'Because we can see the tracks of those going in, but they are destroyed and there are no tracks showing they survived.'

Other people's lives are lessons in how we can avoid danger: it is easy to enter the house of a powerful man, but once you are inside, it may already be too late to get out.

Sunday, 24 April 2011

23-Apr-2011 - The scandal over the funding of the 'Yes' campaign

 23-Apr-2011 - The scandal over the funding of the 'Yes' campaign

The AV referendum scandal that calls for a 'No'

The scandal over the funding of the 'Yes' campaign in the AV referendum reveals the effrontery of our political class, says Christopher Booker.

Britain's biggest providers of balloting paraphenalia are Electoral Reform Services Ltd
Britain's biggest providers of balloting paraphernalia are Electoral Reform Services Ltd  Photo: ALAMY
The only really interesting thing to have emerged from a farcically trivial campaign for a referendum nobody wants on the “Alternative Vote” was an extraordinary scandal exposed two months ago by The Spectator. With the aid leaked internal documents, Ed Howker revealed that the Electoral Reform Society, the biggest single donor to the “Yes to AV” campaign, might derive huge financial benefits from the introduction of a voting system to which, until last year, it was bitterly opposed.
The Yes campaign has largely been organised by employees of the ERS, which is the main shareholder in a company called Electoral Reform Services Ltd. This already draws much of its £21 million annual income from providing poll cards, ballot papers and other paraphernalia for our voting system. If the Yes campaign were successful, it would create a system so much more complex to administer (it is estimated that it could triple the cost of a general election) that it could open up a huge new business opportunity for the ERS’s commericial arm. (The ERS has, of course, strongly denied this.)
What lays this even more open to charges of self-interest is that until last year no one was more scornful of AV than the ERS itself, set up in 1884 to campaign for full-blown proportional representation and nothing less. Still more shocking are the various internal memos leaked to Mr Howker showing how anxious the ERS was to hide all this from the media, so that the public would not be aware of its potential financial interest in the referendum’s outcome.
While our democracy continues to gurgle down the plughole, this pitiful, unwanted farce is turning out to be no more than another instance of the shamelesss effrontery of the political class that now rules over us.
To view the original article CLICK HERE

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

Saturday, 23 April 2011




that Pan EU Political Party Membership is espoused by these two proven totally dishonest individuals speaks volumes for the prostitution of UKIP to their aims and values as they seek their personal self enrichment and aggrandisement.

Neither of these odious individuals have ever shown ANY interest in the probity, morality or reputation of UKIP or the interests of its members.

Stuart Agnew and Mick McGough were both only too willing to lie, bully and cheat for their personal selection CLICK HERE both men colluded in corruption and are without honour or integrity.

That Stuart Agnew MEP brought UKIP into disrepute when exposed involved in Fraud by The Sunday Times is irrefutable and that he has made ZERO contribution to the aims of members to Leave-The-EU is clear as he defrauds the tax payer  for his own gain.

Mick McGough is a low life beneath contempt with neither dignity, self respect nor integrity CLICK HERE

That these are the caliber of proponents for the prostitution of UKIP to aid The EU should come as no surprise to the informed as they would clearly do any underhand deal for personal gain.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

APRIL - Tim CONGDON - 'No' to a Pan-European Party

 APRIL - Tim CONGDON - 'No' to a Pan-European Party

Betrayal of the Party's ideals

By Prof Tim Congdon

Like other members of UKIP, I have been horrified at the transfer of governmental powers from my country to the European Union. In 1972, when Parliament voted to join the then ‘Common Market’, no one foresaw how far the UK would lose its economic and political independence in less than 40 years.

Indeed, given Mr. Heath’s promises and the apparently harmless wording of the Accession Treaty, no one could have foreseen that loss of independence.
Like most members of UKIP, I am also horrified that a proposal is being made for our party to associate itself with parties from other European countries in order to create a ‘pan-European party’. As of now, no one can forecast exactly what might happen to UKIP as one element in that pan-European party, because – as usual – the relevant EU documents are badly-written, complex and open to several interpretations. But who could be surprised if the eventual outcome – over many years, perhaps – is that UKIP loses its identity and becomes absorbed in a political movement that is mostly ‘European’ in character?

The continued existence of our nation as a nation is threatened by our membership of the EU; the continued existence of our party as a party is threatened by the proposal that it belong to a pan-European party.
The debate about UKIP and pan-European parties is therefore not a minor sideshow for our party and its members; it is about nothing less than the survival of our party with its own name and identity. The UK Independence Party must remain the UK Independence Party. It must not become a subsidiary of ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ or an annex to ‘the European Alliance’.

Am I exaggerating? Check the wording of the European Commission’s regulations on the subject. The last one – Regulation (EC) No. 1524/2007 (of 18 December 2007) – defined the activities that European Parliament political funding might finance. The explicit intention was to establish ‘political foundations’ at ‘the European level’. In other words, over the long run no money would be made available to political parties unless the purpose were to transform national politics into European-level politics.

All the arguments for a link-up with a pan-European party are false. First, it is claimed that – by merging UKIP into a new ‘European Alliance’ (as suggested in the notorious ‘Bonici e-mail’ of 27 October 2010) – we can tap into another million euros of European Parliament money. Indeed, the EU bureaucrats have cleverly told MEPs that the size of the jam pot is fixed, so that – if UKIP refuses to belong to a pan-European party – the remaining jam will go to the other MEPs who do form such parties.

This is the sort of cunning trick that has persuaded so many of Britain’s politicians to hand over power to Brussels, Strasbourg and Frankfurt since 1973. But in fact the million euros cannot be directed to any UKIP political activity in our own country. That is what the European Commission’s regulations say very clearly. The one million euros would not in fact be for UKIP at all.

Following the German model of state-subsidized think-tanks, the money would have to stay in Brussels to pay for ‘research’ from a new ‘foundation’ (that is, a think-tank).

Secondly, their advocates say that involvement in pan-European parties would give UKIP more prominence in debates in the European Parliament, which would then enhance our media visibility. This is nonsense.

In the brave new world of pan-European parties UKIP’s MEPs – who owe their position to the hard work and devotion of the party membership in the UK – may say and do wonderful things in the European Parliament.

But they will not do so as MEPs attached to UKIP. They will instead be advertised as MEPs of ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ or ‘the European Alliance’. Sure, there will be extra media visibility for the party to which MEPs belong. To be precise, there will be extra media visibility for ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ or ‘the European Alliance’.

The voice of UKIP as the United Kingdom Independence Party will not be heard more loudly if it becomes affiliated to a pan-European party. On the contrary, it will be increasingly forgotten and ignored.

Many of the party’s best and most active members are dismayed – even appalled – that UKIP participation in a pan-European party has been proposed. They see it as a betrayal of the party’s ideals, just as their country’s membership in the EU is a betrayal of their country’s institutions and traditions. They are right. The pan-European party idea does betray them. UKIP must have no connection of any sort with a pan-European party.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

APRIL - Trevor COLMAN MEP - 'No' to a Pan-European Party

 APRIL - Trevor COLMAN MEP - 'No' to a Pan-European Party

A Step Too Far

By Trevor Colman MEP
The introduction of pan-European parties is a move by the European Union to rid itself of political parties representing national freedom.

The legislation introducing pan-European structures, Regulations (EC) 2004/2003 and 1524/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council 4.11.03 and 18.12.07 clearly identify three requirements alien to UKIP ideals. 

The aim of this legislation, stated again and again, is to hasten the integration process of individual countries into a supra national European state.  The following are just four of the many references to ‘integration’.

The introductory paragraph to Reg. 2004/2003 states ‘political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration’.

Later, Article 2(4) of the same regulation declares that ‘political foundations at European level complement the objectives of the political parties at European level....and on the process of European integration’.

Para 3 of reg. 1524/2007 declares, ‘political foundations at European level affiliated with the political parties at European level may [contribute] to the debate on European public policy issues and on European integration’.
Finally a letter from the Directorate General in April, 2010 stresses that ‘political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union’.

This legislation makes no attempt to hide the fact that European integration is one of its prime objectives.

Becoming a pan-European party means an acceptance of an EU-twisted society.  Nothing is what it appears to be.

Reg 2004/2003 article 3(c), for example, is a masterful example of EU double-speak.  ‘A political party at European level must observe the principles on which the European Union is founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and the rule of law’. 

UKIP cannot observe the ‘principles on which the EU is founded’.  The EU was falsely presented to the British as a trading arrangement with a promise that ‘there would be no loss of essential national sovereignty’. 

Britain’s EU membership, based entirely on a falsehood, makes it impossible for UKIP to accept the founding of the EU.

Similarly, how can UKIP accept ‘the principles of liberty and democracy’ as defined by EU Treaties when, in reality, no such principles exist in this corrupt, undemocratic structure?

According to Reg. 2004/2003 para 4, ‘respect for human rights’ means,  acceptance of ‘the principles... recognised in the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union’. 

This Charter (about which the British have never been consulted) destroys our inalienable rights as free-born Britons and tramples on the protections contained in the British Constitution, Magna Carta and the Bill of Rights.     
Para 4 of Reg. 2004/2003 also indicates that the principles, including the ‘rule of law’,  are ‘as set out in the Treaties’. This means a rule of law incorporating Corpus Juris, the European Arrest Warrant, the European Investigation Order, Europol, a European Prosecutor and the European Gendarmerie. Habeas Corpus, jury trial, the safeguards of the British Constitution and the adversarial Anglo Saxon system of criminal justice will vanish.

The so-called ‘founding principles’ in this legislation are a travesty of what they purport to be.
In reality by becoming a pan-European party UKIP would be accepting a structure founded on deceit, with human rights defined and regulated by a secretive political cabal, where democratic processes are denied or ignored and where the rule of law is an oppressive arm of the state.

Funding: Art. 7(1) and (2) Reg. 2004/2003 baldly states that ‘the funding of political parties and foundations at European level from the EU or from any other source, may not be used for the direct or indirect funding of other political parties and in particular national parties or candidates.’

This means EU (public) money can be used to fund pan-European party campaigns but not national parties such as UKIP. 

Further, it is plain from the above that the allegedly large sums of pan-European money cannot be used to benefit UKIP either directly or indirectly.

Despite the massive bribes apparently on offer, EU money, in reality, can only be used supporting a structure that will destroy UKIP.

If UKIP joins or becomes a pan-European party then it will betray Britain and support the federal European state it is sworn to oppose. If that happens, our country is lost.

This is a step too far.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62



We should not sell out for 30 pieces of silver

By Mike Smith
I was asked to write 500 words on why UKIP shouldn’t join a Pan European Party. To me the issue is so simple and straightforward, that may prove difficult!

I joined UKIP in the early 1990s purely to free my beloved country from its entanglement in European politics, which, incidentally, I never supported in the first place.

I acknowledge that many who have joined the Party more recently, especially the very welcome younger members, have a much broader agenda. However, leaving the EU is the only way that wider agenda can be achieved.

I believe that Pan-European Parties are a further device to promote a European superstate – and an unusually obvious one at that. I am utterly amazed that some of our MEPs, who have been elected to get us out of the European Union, have fallen for it. Thank goodness for the likes of Trevor Colman who have seen through it and alerted us. His masterly dissertation exposes the duplicitous Eurospeak.

Do we really want to vote for the same party as they do in Serbia, Bulgaria, Latvia et al?  Because that is what “Pan” means.

The fact that this issue is being debated at all demonstrates how it has split our Party wide open from top to bottom.  And it is our Party – it does not belong to the MEPs. It must be sheer joy to the Europhiles in Westminster and Brussels.

It has been claimed that we would get €1million if we were to join a PEP. Others say we would have to pay €200,000 first and we would not be able to use any of it to promote UKIP in this country.

However, whoever is correct is largely academic. I am opposed to state funding of political parties whether from Brussels or Westminster. Once the state controls their funding it controls the parties and that is yet another nail in the coffin of democracy.

But it is not about money. I joined a British Party. If the Party I joined were no longer British then I would want absolutely nothing to do with it. The work and money that I have ploughed into it over nearly 15 years will be utterly wasted.  But if UKIP joins or becomes a Pan European Party I WILL leave it and even find it very difficult to vote for it in future elections.  And I will not be the only one!

Don’t let a handful of MEPs, who we have put in place with our shoe leather and widows’ mites, sell the soul of our Party for 30 pieces of euro silver.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

Monday, 11 April 2011




It is glibly claimed by some of the less intelligent UKIP NEC & Leadership, particularly their more sycophantic and self serving parasites, without any apparent sourcing or reference in support of their claims.

Surely after some 60 years of EU scams and shennanigens they would reasonably expect to engage their brains before putting their mouths in gear and potentially making fools of themselves yet again - they claim that:
'money granted through participation in Pan EU Political Parties can be used to fight a referendum in the UK (IF WE GET ONE)'
To view this unfounded claim CLICK HERE for UKIP NEC members to sneer and abuse supporters and thus drag the party into their gutter style of sneering behaviour is damaging UKIP as has been UKIP's manner with the level of idiot they habitually have in their leadership.
Clearly lacking any vestige of intellect or political nouse it would seem UKIP's only ability is to cover-up their ineptitude with ill manners and lies, such that it is almost impossible and definitely unwise, to believe a word they say, having so consistently been proven either dishonest or just plain wrong!

Barbara Booker takes a more intelligent and reasoned look at this funding endorsing points made in earlier sections on this Blog.!
Has anyone bothered to check if this is true? (the comment by Mick McGough quoted above!)

It's been generally accepted by not only UKIP spokespeople and EUobserver, but also the Daily Mail and Express, that a rule change now allows Europarties to use their funding to campaign in a referendum on UK membership, even though there appears to be no evidence for this other than Nigel Farage's word.

As Farage is very keen indeed for members to agree to letting him take UKIP into a Europarty, it would be wise to verify his claims by getting the facts direct from the EP's Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) and the British Electoral Commission.

The trouble is, we are all very ready to believe claims about the 'evil' EU that play to our own prejudices. If those claims are based only on personal interpretation of possibly ambiguous statements translated from another language, it's very easy to be mistaken. Nigel Farage has made one interpretation of the debate at a recent AFCO meeting; I have made another. As the implications for UKIP's decision on joining a Europarty are so serious, I urge someone (Trevor Colman? Tim Congdon?) to establish the truth.

* * * * *

At the AFCO meeting on 14 March rapporteur Marietta Giannakou presented her draft report reviewing the regulations governing Europarties and recommending some changes, including one that would allow these parties to use their funds in referendum campaigns on directly linked EU issues. Current funding rules forbid Europarty participation in any referendum campaigns at all. 

The draft report is at and the only references to referendums are at points 16 and 30, and in the third paragraph from the end of section II of the explanatory statement. The contentious wording is at point 30 where, having noted that Europarties can already use their funds to campaign in EP elections, it says:

"they are prohibited from using these sums for financing 'referenda campaigns'; considers that the reason for this is probably a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of Member States; believes, however that, if European political parties are to play a political role at EU level, they should have the right to participate in such campaigns as long as the subject of the referendum has a direct link with issues concerning the European Union"

Amendment 95, put down by Andrew Duff, removed from the draft report the words: "considers that the reason for this is probably a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of Member States".

Nigel Farage interprets this as allowing Europarties to spend their funding on a national referendum in the UK, a view that was expanded on by Gawain Towler in his blog England Expects on 15 March, reported by EUobserver on 17 March as posted at CLICK HERE, and by the Daily Mail on 19 March (Now MEPs can use UK taxpayers' cash for propaganda to keep Britain in the EU) and Express on 21 March (Plot to 'rig' your EU vote). The similarity between the Mail and Express articles, using several near identical phrases, suggests that both articles may have sprung from the same press release; Stuart Agnew told the Mail that his group in the EP would use its funding to campaign for withdrawal, because "Why should taxpayers' money just go to fund the "Yes" side?"; now Mick McGough says "this money can be used to fight a referendum in the UK".

How true is all this? Well, Nigel Farage didn't even wait for AFCO to vote on the report before rushing out his version and using it to give UKIP a shove towards joining a Europarty. At 6:03am on 15 March he was tweeting away:
"Decision by EP to allow pan euro parties to get involved in national referendums means UKIP must join or money will go to pro EU side",
followed at 07:13 on Facebook by:
"MEPs in Committee have approved decisions to allow pan european political parties to become involved in national referendums on EU issues. This means that unless UKIP join one the money which we could spend getting our message across will be given to the other side"

The first untruth is that the "EP" or "MEPs in Committee" had taken a decision. They hadn't. AFCO had debated the report the day before, but didn't vote on it until the 10am session on 15 March, some four hours after Farage's twitter and Facebook posts. The rest of the EP didn't get to vote on it until the plenary session on 6 April. Even now, there has been no rule change, because the resolution adopted on 6 April was non-legislative. The report is only a request to the Commission to propose a draft statute, which will then have to go all through the EP procedures again for consideration and amendment before becoming law. In the meantime, Europarties are still prohibited from involvement in referendums.

The second untruth is that the report calls for Europarties to become involved in "national" referendums. It doesn't. It doesn't even mention national referendums. It talks about Europarties' role "at EU level", so it would seem logical and not unreasonable that pan-EU parties would want to become involved in pan-EU referendums. Giannakou herself, when interviewed recently said: "EU parties would be allowed to take part only in those referenda campaigns directly connected to European issues, for example on a change of treaty".

We also know from Sharon Ellul Bonici's e-mail last October CLICK HERE that the European Alliance for Freedom (the Europarty UKIP would be joining) is planning to call for a referendum under the new Citizens' Initiative: "one of the first campains we can engage ourselves in is to generate 1 million signatures to be able to instigate a pan wide European referendum on Turkey. The idea is to use the million signature clause according to the Lisbon Treaty".

As the law stands at present, they could use their funds to petition for a referendum, but not to campaign in the referendum itself. It's hardly surprising that MEPs want this situation changed.

Viewed like this, that the report has nothing to do with purely national referendums and only seeks involvement in pan-European ones, Duff's amendment 95 would have been aimed simply at removing unwarranted fears over EU intervention rather than, as Gawain Towler suggests, brushing aside EU recognition that it shouldn't interfere in domestic affairs.

A third untruth, at least under current British electoral law, is that Europarty funds can be used in a UK referendum campaign. Gawain Towler touches on this: "money donated to the Lib Dem Euro political party, by someone living in France, could be used to fund a pro-European referendum campaign in the UK by washing it through the European Political Party. In direct contravension of British electoral law, but so be it".

He is right, of course, but the same would apply if the donor living in another EU country had given money to UKIP's Europarty. Before UKIP members get pushed too far down the Europarty road, advice should be sought from the Electoral Commission on the implications of a possible change in EU law. Europarties, which by their nature accept donations from non UK residents, would presumably have to register as political parties here in order to become permitted participants in UK referendums. What would be ElCom's view on this?

Finally, even if such electoral hurdles were cleared it is by no means certain that Farage, Agnew, McGough, etc. are right in saying that UKIP could use Europarty money to fight for withdrawal in a UK referendum.

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that no EU funds would be available to UKIP itself. The money would go to the Europarty, to campaign in the referendum (if that was allowed) on whatever stance the Europarty took on EU withdrawal. Since other Europarty members are in favour of EU membership, and since they would be aware that winning a UK referendum would mean the loss of UKIP from the EP, quite possibly resulting in their Europarty's collapse, how can we be so sure they wouldn't want to campaign for the 'stay in' side?

Turkeys voting for their own demise at Christmas is one thing. Agreeing to fund the slaughterhouse is something else!

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

Sunday, 10 April 2011

10-Apr-2011 - IF AGNEW, McWILLIAMS & McGOUGH Advocate A Sell Out:

10-Apr-2011 - IF AGNEW, McWILLIAMS & McGOUGH Advocate A Sell Out:


IF AGNEW, McWILLIAMS & McGOUGH Advocate A Sell Out then let us face it that should be enough for decent folk to know that a Yes vote makes no sense for Britain!

Let us look at the claimed reasons for a yes vote which they put forward:

By Stuart Agnew MEP, Steph McWilliam of the South West Region
and NEC Member 
Mick McGough
        Stuart AGNEW MEP


This vote is about three vital opportunities for our Party. First, this vote is about the Party being able to pay for a wide range of activities in the UK using, effectively, UK Taxpayer’s money returned to us by the EU.
Clearly larger parties will have a hugely larger amount. More tax payers' money squandered on useless politicians - take the moral high ground and Vote NO.
Secondly, this vote will provide the Party with the services of a Think Tank which will enable us, for the very first time, to match our opponents in strategy and policy-formation. If we are to be a serious contender in British politics, this is a vital strength we must add.
A Think Tank requires individual capable of political thought - every time UKIP has had anyone of this ilk it has permitted its leader to fire them and replace them with a fully funded sycophant!
Thirdly, this vote is about denying our enemies approximately £1,300,000 in funding which will otherwise be divided up between them.
Slightly less than the cost of ONE MEP - if UKIP MEPs had danated a percentage of their salary to the party this sum would be dwarfed.
Above all, this vote is about building upon our successes from 2009 to today to displace the Liberal Democrats and win the European Elections in 2014.
UKIP has had no success - it has merely dishonestly capitalised on the lack of factual knowledge of the electorate relative to expenses and the promotion of The BNP by Farage & Croucher.

UKIP has lost its ONLY MEPs with any integrity.
Vote “NO” if you want UKIP to languish on the fringe of politics.
Vote NO and concentrate on Clening Up UKIP to make it electable - rid of liars, low lifes and cheats like McGough, Agnew, Bloom, Nuttall, Bannerman, Clark, Andreasen etc.
Vote “YES” for progress in our noble cause.
There is absolutely nothing 'Noble' about UKIP's self serving garbage that forms its leadership and its parasites.
The scheme involves UKIP joining a European political party based on the existing Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group
But they are unprincipled trash - anti Jewish, anti homosexual, racist, xenophobic and pro EU membership and revisionism. EVER UKIP MEP of any morality has resigned because of these filth!
and creating a professional Think Tank to enable us
With the permission of UKIP's utterly corrupt co-campaigners in the gutter of EU politics.
- for the first time - to produce policy papers explaining our messages.
Richard North waas producing those on a regular basis as was Heather Cunningham but UKIP leadership were too stupid to understand the value - so they fired them!
Starting from our current, comfortable set of working relationships with our prospective allies, we are advised that the ANNUAL allocation of funds would be:
But NO ONE would want to be associated with filth like that EVEN for money!
For the political party € 850,000 (£733,000 approx) and;
For the Think Tank € 500,000 (£431,000 approx)

That gives €1,350,000 (£1,164,000 approx.) gross per year.
PEANUTS relative to the amount UKIP leadership could contribute and a fraction of the cash they could raise if anyone respected or trusted them.
Deducting administration and salaries leaves about € 600,000 (£518,000 approx) for the political party and €350,000 (£219,000 approx) for the Think Tank.
UKIP Hugely over pays mediocre trash and for rational salaries could tripple the staff for research - Not ONE UKIP staff member is worth the money they are paid and these idiots want to squander more!.
UKIP might expect, with the size of its delegation, to get approximately half that sum every year. This would mean that, EVERY YEAR, we would have the benefit of the sum of up to € 475,000 (£400,000 approximately) from the political party and the Foundation.  To put this in perspective, the 2010 general election cost us some £350,000.  We currently have nothing like that at our disposal.
Due to profligacy, fraud, failures of accounting and seemingly amounts running into at least 7 figures that have seemingly been nicked. Farage alone boasts he has made £2Million over and above his salary and expenses!

He has been paying his wife £30K for years and now he pays a so called Tory based PR agency to rig internal elections for him whilst seemingly funding one of his mistresses a foul mouthed woman of proven low morality and gutter morays - with clearly little ability and corrupt - paid from Party funds or at very least funds available to the party!
By the end of this Parliament we will have had access to more than £1 million. This is a sum which we scarcely dream of raising by conventional methods.
RUBBISH this is a fraction of the money that has gone missing due to corrupt internal accounting.

What makes anyone think this new money wouldn't be stolen too?
The grant is used to meet expenditure linked to the objectives set out in the European  party’s political programme, such as:
Meetings, conferences
Publications, studies, advertisements
Administrative, personnel, travel costs
Campaign costs connected to European elections.
This is just jumping through The EU's hoops to get The EU bribes - how does this differ from prostitution?
For example, we might use it to produce a flyer for the UK’s young female voters on the effects of the recent European Court of Justice decision which will drive up their insurance premiums – in the name of equality!
IF OF COURSE the partners in this scam don't wish to see it spent altering imigration from Afriica to Southern Italy to pay for train tickets for them to relocate to Britain.

SCARILY JUST AS POSSIBLE (though just as unlikely as UKIP producing a well thought out and designed leaflet!).
Given its direct connection to EU Law, we can pay for it under the publications heading.
WITH CLEARANCE from The EU AND partners in the Group!
As part of EFD we already have to conform to similar rules about what we can do and how. It has not caused a problem - and it will not cause a problem if we take this grant.
This is not true.

There is no accounting for the £76,000 per MEP currently obtained under the 400 Budget. Further there is no accounting for the 6000 Travel Budget - is the money designated but not used by UKIP MEPs used as bribes to buy members of the EFD Group?
We cannot use the grant to meet expenditure such as:
DO READ THE RULES! GoTo CLICK HERE & then CLICK the first picture.
Campaign costs for referenda1
Non-European elections
Funding national parties, candidates
Debts and debt service charges.

Much may be made of the exclusion of “direct or indirect funding”. But when 2014 comes along, we can use a big chunk of our share for the campaign costs of that year’s European Elections quite legitimately.
WITH the permission of one's partners!
Do also bear in mind the fact that the leading parties will receive far more so all it means is that the cost of politics increases and UKIP will be absolutely no better off - whereas if they refused to please The EU they could make huge issue of how the public were not being allowed to vote democratically on a level playing field!
The EU itself makes that clear.
Do YOU really believe that the EU EVER makes anything clear? How very naiive!
In other years imagine what we could do with our grant to campaign on issues such as the European Arrest Warrant, European Court of Human Rights’ judgments or how the EU and the Treaties undermine our immigration policy.
Just think UKIP might even have thought of campaigning to Leave-The-EU!!
Right now we simply do not have the money.
The intelligence, the integrity or the ability!
Given that at least 75% of our laws are now made in Brussels, almost every subject that UKIP campaigns upon is affected by EU legislation.
One wonders how these clowns could have reached such a profound insight without a Think Tank!
That means that we can direct this money to help us in the UK.
Might that include publishing an exit and survival strategy that they have lacked the ability to produce in 18 years despite the many £Millions that have gone amiss!
Indeed it is probable that 90% of the funds can be so utilised.
IF UKIP's partners don't want the money spent on ammending the fisheries policy to benefit Mediteranean fishermen - maybe if the bribes are adequate they can also help fund Austria's maritime policies!
On top of that we will have the Think Tank (Foundation).
Already a percentage of what support UKIP could give is being squandered on support of GM Foods, and other NFU policies. As for intelligence surely no one can take seriously any advice on research from a slime like Mick McGough who lied to and cheated his associates and Party members with his lies about being PPC for Harlow CLICK HERE
We would be able to match the likes of Open Europe and the Tories in producing high quality research and policy proposals.
Don't be daft - they have both ability and experience - They also seem able to fund Think Tanks when clearly UKIP can't even think let alone directionally!
We can  produce strategic material to set the agenda for political debate in the UK instead of always being the party which has to react to others’ ideas.
Hardly likely as UKIP under its present leadership is scared to death of intelligence and relies on bullying and abuse as a management style, not to mention distortion and lies!
We can use Think Tank funding to give professional presentations to the press.
Anyone can do that with just the simplest of ability and wise use of software and IT. All at virtually no cost.
IF UKIP is too incompetent for the huge amount squandered on the parasites it gathers in its Press Office & PR it could hire a professional.
In short, a Think Tank will help UKIP to punch above its weight and mix it with the Old Parties at an entirely new level.
RUBBISH you on the one hand explain how the professional politicians are streets ahead then you add money in liberal tranches to those same politicians and miraculously you expect UKIP to develope a brain!!
Get Real!
If we are to match our ambitions to become the third party of British politics and winners in 2014, this is a vital step to attain the professionalism so roundly endorsed by our membership in the 2010 leadership election.
Is there a reason you have chosen to fail and merely remain the third party?
All this does require a small amount of matched funding: as little as 10% of the amount. And initially we only have to raise a share proportionate to our size – and of that only a small  proportion has to be found up front. The rest can be found as individual projects are brought forward.  We can achieve that.
How come there is no record of consistent donation to the party by its MEPs other than for their own personal re-election and even then some like Farage NEVER make donations, as the record shows!
If conditions or the Regulations change unfavourably, we can leave at any time, just as one can leave an alliance or a coalition.
They are unfavourable!
There are no signs of UKIP disassociating from the scum in The EFD
There is, in addition, another side to these grants. Our €1,350,000 (£1,170,000 approx) comes from a finite pot. Presently 10 parties take money from that pot. If we become number 11, then the other ten parties lose, on average, €135,000 (£117,000 approx).
So UKIP's insignificant gain would not significantly harm the larger parties!
So, there are benefits to UKIP which at one and the same moment harm our enemies: a double-whammy with our enemies in the middle!
Doesn't this denote the weakness of the argument in favour of prostituting UKIP to obliging The EU?
Just as the Salvation Army used to go around pubs and sell their publications with the slogan “Take the Devil’s money to do God’s work!”, so might we take what is after all UK Taxpayer’s money and use it to bring us victory in our noble cause. Would you rather that YOUR money is used to fund our enemies’ campaigns or to fund UKIP’s?
Even ignoring the moral issue of obliging the EU and jumping through their hoops -
Consider the wisdom of providing ones enemies with £20 to buy weapons in return for being given £2.50.
The sum one receives relative to ones' enemies is so paultry in relationship that it is better to hold the moral high ground and sabotage the scheme.
If you think that this money might just come in a bit handy to help destroy Federalism and Integration, vote ‘YES’!
Voting YES I believe I have clearly shown aids The EU to advance its corrupt aims at the expense of these United Kingdoms whilst some completely idiotic numpties can be duped into assisting The EU with a Yes vote!
The ‘NO’ campaign alleges that the UKIP brand would be diluted. This is nonsense.
You fail totally to make an argument let alone a convincing OR valid argument. Giving other parties £20 and UKIP £2.50 by definition dilutes UKIP's efficacy - the only answer is to block the EU's scam and seize the moral high ground.
The Conservatives are part of a European Political Party. Which is better known in the UK: ‘The Conservative Party’ or ‘The Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists’?
Stop 100 people in the street and not more than 5 would be able to tell you this, possibly even less.
Indeed has anyone ever heard of ‘The Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists’? Of course not, because the Tories still fight under their own name and their brand is not diluted in any way.
You make my point for me yet you seek to grant legitimacy to Pan EU Political Parties supplanting National Parties in international Groups - DO READ THE RULES!
The ‘NO’ campaign claims taking part in a European Political Party is ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’.
It undeniably is as it requires subsuming ones' National Party and asspirations to a Pan EU Party. Do WAKE-UP!
But surely to do so is no more ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’ than taking part in European Elections or, once elected, taking your seat and being an MEP.
Don't be daft - there is absolutely no similarity and giving bufoons like you money to run a think tank shows the danger of this new EU Scam.
Every month our MEPs receive substantial sums. Are they thereby taking the ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’ Shilling? No! The money for the party is no more ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’ than the money paid to MEPs.
This is a falsehood and clearly it is a calculated risk - though equally clearly most UKIP MEPs have gone totally Native and even Farage has castigated MEPs like Derek Clark for doing no work in their constituencies - naturally he fears the liar and dishonest Marta Andreasen and has not commented on her disinterest in her constituency, wherever she may consider that to be, Barcelona?
And, remember, using this money, they are daily carrying the fight to the very heart of the EU in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Which in 18 years has been shown to be a complete waste of time as The EU Parliament is a complete irrelevance and only of use, as Nikki Sinclaire uses it, to provide sound bites to address in the British Media - That her hard work has spread across the media of the rest of The EU is a measure of her efficacy!

Stuart Agnew's ONLY National coverage has been for his corruption, dishonesty and fraud!
The ‘NO’ campaign says that “accepting its money is corrupt”. So is the ‘NO’ campaign saying that our MEPs and their staff are corrupt?
Well? Answer that for yourself and you will soon realise why UKIP has NEVER achieved anything of value in The UK - They are not trusted because of their widely publicised corruption - whether theft by Agnew, Fraud by Clark, Agnew, Bannerman, self enrichment and infantile behaviour of Farage, the lies of Andreassen, Agnew, Bannerman, Agnew, Batten, the collusion in corruption by each and every UKIP MEP CLICK HERE

There is absolutely no way that it can be denied, on numerous counts, that UKIP MEPs and staff are corrupt - one even went to prison for fraud, so far, despite strenuous protection by his associates who colluded in his criminality and Farage even p[rofitted from it. Consider the undeniable dishonesty of Annabelle Fuller bringing UKIP into disrepute and the contempt for British Courts and dishonourable behaviour of Mark Croucher acting with UKIP's support CLICK HERE
Of course not.
We all have different standards, I appreciate, however clearly yours are shown to be beneath contempt.
That they make this allegation merely demonstrates the absurdity of their argument.
I will happily debate your lies, dishonesty, corruption and misrepresentation on ANY public platform which I can attend.
As we see below, some time ago, after proper debate, the Party took the pragmatic decision to fight and take up seats in the European Parliament. It did so notwithstanding the ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’ nature of the institution.
Who now says this was the wrong decision?
Many still consider it was a mistake and the glee with which MEPs and their parasites leap onto the gravy train and seem to do NOTHING of value towards Leave-The-EU but much to further their election chances would incline to display this fact!

May I remind the author that at the UKIP Party Conference there was a very clear debate against joining Pan EU Political Parties - Yet just like the EU those who hope for self enrichment seek to overturn the Party Members' Decision to seek a different result.

And some claim UKIP MEPs have not adopted the morays of The EU!
No one, for the simple reason that it provides the noble cause we all serve with an enormous platform to fight the enemies of British Independence
Is this a management decision to LIE and deny the unequivocal rejection of the concept by Members?
- a platform which the gerrymandered Westminster electoral system denies us.
Do look up 'gerrymander' rather than display your complete political ignorance when relative to this issue!
Taking what some called the ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’ Shilling has boosted our cause exponentially.
It CAN be argued that it has prostituted the integrity hence we have filth like Mick McGough, Stuart Agnew and their ilk telling lies to try to promote a Yes Vote and the sell out of UKIP.
The ‘NO’ campaign alleges UKIP will have to pay tax to HMRC on this money. They are wrong. The only tax that a European Political Party will have to pay is VAT.
So the Party will have to pay tax on the income - Surely even political ignorami like Mick McGough and Stuart Agnew realise that VAT stands for Value Added TAX - which is a tax of £2 in every £10!

A TAX Dummy!
The ‘NO’ campaign contends that this money may not be used for UK political activity.
Read the rules - this is still a matter of debate!
This too is nonsense.
Please quote the exact authorisation that this money may be freely used to influence domestic politics - even WITH permission from UKIP's pro EU associates!
As we have seen much of our grant may properly and legally be directed at our target audience.
We have also noted that much of it can be paid into off shore accounts and that UKIP can not be trusted to produce transparent open accounts with even the slightest semblance of probity.

You may be astonished to know that UKIP MEPs are so unaccountable and UKIP NEC are so ill informed that when Mike Nattrass MEP in a forthright rejection of the manner in which UKIP was led and managed there were NEC members who disn't even realise Nigel Farage was paying his wife despite his promise to UKIP, the members and the electorate that never would he or any elected UKIP official pay a family member.

Moreover, does anyone imagine that the Tories take all their money (the best part of €2,000,000 or £1,750,000 approx) and spend it all in Brussels? Only the utterly naive would credit such an idea.
The vagiaries of other Parties are NOT the issue the issue is how clearly it has been proven that UKIP is not to be trusted and its MEPs and staff are as a generalisation reasonably denounced as corrupt, dishonest and untrustworthy.
The contention of the ‘NO’ campaign that we must concentrate on the UK media to the exclusion of Brussels is, once again, deeply misguided.
No wonder you can give no example why! Clearly IF UKIP sees itself as a withdrawalist party its ONLY relevant audience is Britain and its ONLY place of power to achieve withdrawal is the British electorate.
The ‘NO’ campaign asserts that a European Political Party might endorse integration. Hardly, as we would have a major part in drawing up the party’s political programme. Are we likely to endorse a programme encouraging integration?
EXACTLY what HAS happened. Wee Willy Dartmouth has advocated additional laws to be implemented by The EU.
Clark advocated GREATER subsidiarity of Britain to The EU and also co-operation with The EU to strengthen the control of its committees over the vassal states.
Marta Andreassen has openly advocated Reform rather than withdrawal.
UKIP's election leader even advocated voting for The Tories.
Stuart Agnew advocates policies for The NFU.

I believe my point is clearly made!
The absurdity of the question demonstrates just how weak are the ‘NO’ campaign’s arguments.
Better that the NO campaign weaklly put their facts than stridently lie like the Yes Campaign fronted by liars.
It is suggested that a European Political Party would somehow lead to the end of national political parties.
Do read the rules in conjunction with the EU Constitution Lisbon Treaty.
Ask yourself this: is the Conservative Party likely to abolish itself and campaign in UK elections as ‘The Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists’?
YES - Do not forget Edward Heath later admitted that he had LIED to deliberately mislead the electorate.
A moment’s thought reveals that this too is absurd. 
Are YOU capable of a moment's thought? Almost every point made for a Yes vote has been a complete misrepresentation.
The Tories would be committing political suicide.
What bunkum if they believe they will hold a controlling role in a major Pan EU Political Party - They would see this as an advance in their political ambitions as they are, as a party, pro EU membership.
We may think the Tories stupid, but they are not that stupid.
Is it not YOU being 'stupid' that you lack the political comprehension to understand guile rather than your own coarse dishonesty?
The Regulations make it clear we can use this money to campaign for European Elections.
WITH your partners' permission and in accordance with EU constraints - Do read the rules!
In 2014 we aim to come first.
Yet a mere few paragraphs earlier the aim was to come third or was that only in the more important UK Political genre?
How are we to fund that ambition?
Particularly if as part of voting Yes we are giving our enemies more money than we get proportionately - That would clearly exacerbate the problem to no gain.
Will access to several hundred thousand Euros help or hinder us?
Hinder if it is beset with regulation and if in gaining that sum we morally grant the 3 main parties who are ALL pro EU £1Million each!
Do try joined up thinking!
As to raising money, the EU’s rules on donations are, compared to the UK’s, short, simple and elastic.
UKIP found UK rules eleastic and were found guilty in Court of being on the fiddle! Aided largely by Farage and Andrew Smith - Mick McGough's sponsor!!
You may recal Andrew Smith was exposed as treasurer issuing an internal 'e'Mail which I published advocating corruption and dishonesty with the intent to deceive the Electoral Commission - a matter about which, without ANY credibility Mick McGough has repeatedly lied and misrepresented as we see in the Yes Campaign's dishonest presentation for personal gain.
Thus we shall be able to receive donations from expatriates and others who are otherwise prohibited in the UK.
Indeed - watch out Rob McWhirtter, they will be tracking you down in Switzerland! 
UKIP has already laundered corrupt donations from foreign donors as The Sunday Times exposed, using Global Britain a scam set up by Michael Pearson.
This will provide a new, untapped resource.
Rubbish - as a resource it is easily circumvented within the framework of electoral law it is just that UKIP has consistently been too stupid to act within the law!
And, remember that UKIP will be one of the big beasts in this party and so will be able to call the shots.
RUBBISH - UKIP currently has a mere 10 out of the 29 MEPs with 2 more likely to leave after the election and possibly as many as 6 wishing to leave to position themselves for re-election by the end of November.

Already we know that Bannerman is making further overtures to the Tories as has Andreassen in the past and it seems likely the dim wit Wee Willy temper tantrum will also jump ship. Then since John Bufton's aims and values are those of UKIP members rather than the corrupt EFD and Farage it seems likely he will have the integrity to leave.

I doubt Batten will have the integrity as he lacks both integrity and moral conviction and I would guess that those outside of The EFD whether calling themselves UKIP or not would rather he did not join them as he is both untrustworthy and of very little merit or competence.

Rather Ruritainian as Big Beasts go - More The Mouse That Roared!
Finally, are we about to compromise our principles, as the “NO” campaign suggest?
Did they 'suggest' that - Irather thought they stated it unequivocally and again may I remind those of you on the make and the take that at The UKIP Conference the Membership soundly rejected the idea of joining a Pan EU Political Party.
Again, No!
Just how thick are you - surely you can not believe your own lies?
The Regulation says that a European Political Party must subscribe to the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.
Run that past me again!
You are quoting The EU as your founding principles - personally I trust virtually NOTHING that has emanated from The EU in the last 60 years.
UKIP might be said to support these principles more honestly and more comprehensively than any other party in the UK or, indeed the EU itself.
It is sad that there are so many proven liars, cheats and scoundrells seeking self aggrandisement and self enrichment as part of the leadership of UKIP and it parasites that climb all over the party like maggots in betrayal of principles seeking rewards!
This issue is the third substantive battle within UKIP between the purists and the pragmatists. Taking the money is the pragmatic option. It has prevailed twice before - and if the party is to succeed, then the pragmatists need to win again.
Pragmatists? Every time one eneters into a deal that prostitutes the party the party is demeaned.

Just look at how the party has collapsed in terms of informed activists, replacing much of the party with chavs, fools and the self seeking - unable after 18 years to field sufficient candidates to earn an electoral broadcast!

The pragmatism has led to making the party a laughing stock - would the purists act like fools and dress up as chickens? Would they field a schoolgirl unselected by due process as candidate for Mayor in a Major City? Would pragmatism back a series of failed publicans? Would pragmatism bring the party into disrepute in the Courts?

Yes twice before the pond life and filth have demeaned UKIP and yet again they seek self enrichment at the expense of the Party and principles -That is not pragmatism, that is prostitution.
In 1994 there was furious debate about the proposal to fight seats for the EU Parliament elections but not to take them up. Then in 1998 we agreed to take our seats if elected.
Since UKIP has effectively rendered itself irrelevant - Do you have a point?
One of those who left the party in disagreement over these very issues was Gerard Batten. Now an MEP, Gerard is a valued colleague, using his position (and money from the EU’s taxpayers) to fight - hard and effectively - for this great cause.
The man is a twerp of no value to the party as shown by his vote in The Mayoral Election and the near total collapse of his constituency. A man with no understanding of morality or Justice - show boating on Phillipino Catholic Politics of anti Islamism - his sole claim to achievem,ent being a brief re-write of the Government Pink Book on occasions to show the costs of EU membership - which The Pink Book shows without the re-write and used to be produced by Harry Randall on EUroRealist and SilentMajority within 2 days of The Government publishing The Pink Book!
How many of UKIP’s members would seriously oppose those decisions now?
As well over 30.000 have left in that period it is not hard to argue that the outcome suited the rump and dross of UKIP that remained.
The next step was to form part of a Group.
Which was catastrophic as the first group was led by the willey old Piers Bonde and it was through him that Farage would seem to have learned many of the tricks of corruption and dishonesty it seems.
Many saw it as a betrayal. Now, not only has it helped financially but it boosts speaking time and thus our profile: would UKIP and Nigel Farage have any hope of such exposure if he was not a Group leader?
Provably untrue and the EFD bears no resemblance. Farage is now linked irrevocably to the racism, anti Judaism, violence, dishonesty, corruption, anti homosexuality and pro EU stance of the majority of the group he runs and has duplicitousy subsumed UKIP into in direct contravention of the wishes of the members and it seems without the knowledge of some of the dim wits and fruit cakes on the NEC.
We know that the Parliamentary authorities try every legal trick in the book to censor and silence Nigel. 
Rubbish - cite a single example to substantiate such a silly claim.
Being in a Group means they can no longer freeze him out at key moments.
He manages to do this himself with the inanity of many of his comments - a performing monkey without the control of an Organ Grinder is a liability.

Do read the column inches in the press and the near total lack of National coverage of UKIP of any gravitas - because none is earned!
Above all, the formation of an opposition Group was exactly what the Europhiles and our enemies didn’t want us to do.
That UKIP has made itself look fools and behaved like fools and conjoined with the gutter sweepings of EU politics can surely not, in the most tortured and deluded mind, be construed as of benefit to these United Kingdoms.
That equally applies to creating a new political party in the Parliament.  It is exactly the step our enemies do NOT want us to take - which is why we MUST take it.
You are beyond ANY doubt your own worst enemies.

Would supporters of UKIP have so much ammunition in their efforts to clean-up the Party to TRY to make it electable as a Party that honourable men and women would vote for if informed - It is the very style of leadership and parasites l;ike yourselves that provide the amjmunition and drive true UKIP supporters and Patriots to exposing your corruption, dishonesty and outright lies - so clearly made for self enrichment.
Winston Churchill said in a speech in April 1941:“Give us the tools and we will finish the job”
It is well known that it is a bad workman that endlessly blames his tools.

UKIP Leadership and its maggots can find any number of excuses for their failure but are clearly unwilling to
That clarion call might have been crafted with this issue, this Party and this moment in history in mind.
Wordy and pretentious cr@p - which book did which illiterate find this in!
This vote is about giving the Party the tools to finish the job.
It is clearly NOT the Tools at Fault but the corrupt leadership.

1 As a result of a vote in committee in March 2011, it is very likely that the restriction on using grants for referenda will be totally abolished. This is particularly relevant to any referendum held under the proposed European Union Bill 2011 currently going through Parliament. If a sovereignty referendum is called, all three of the old parties will in future be able to use this money to campaign for a “YES” vote. If we do not take this money we will be severely at a disadvantage in such a referendum. If we join up, however, we can use their funds to fight for a “No Transfer” vote.

My Word YOU have Gone Native - YOU can not be real quoting EU woffle as justification for your foolish claims.

YOU imply that EU committees have some relevance in the law making process - SINCE WHEN!

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62