JUMPING THROUGH EU HOOPS or JUST PROSTITUTION?
European political party
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
RegulationsAs of 1 November 2008, the regulation governing Europarties is Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003, as later amended under codecision (see above). According to that regulation's European Commission factsheet, for a party to become a Europarty it must meet the following criteria:
- it must have legal personality in the Member State in which its seat is located.
- it must observe the founding principles of the European Union, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.
- it must have participated, or intend to participate, in elections to the European Parliament.
- it must have in at least one quarter of the Member States, one or both of the following:
- either it must have received at least 3% of the votes cast in each of those Member States at the most recent European Parliament elections.
- or it must already be represented by Members, whether Members of the European Parliament for those states, or Members of the national Parliaments of those states, or Members of the regional Parliaments of those states, or Members of the regional Assemblies of those states.
- it must publish its revenue and expenditure annually.
- it must publish a statement of its assets and liabilities annually.
- it must provide a list of its donors and their donations exceeding €500.
- it must not accept anonymous donations.
- it must not accept donations exceeding €12,000 per year and per donor.
- it must not accept donations from the budgets of political groups of the European Parliament.
- it must not accept more than 40% of a national political party's annual budget.
- it must not accept donations from any company over which the public authorities may exercise a dominant influence, either by virtue of their ownership of it, or by their financial participation therein.
- it must get at least 25% of its budget from sources other than its European Union funding.
- it must submit its application by the 15 November before the financial year that it wants funding for.
►B REGULATION (EC) No 2004/2003 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE
of 4 November 2003
on the regulations governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their
(OJ L 297, 15.11.2003, p. 1)
Following the debate and motion at the Party Conference in September it was agreed that no decision would be made on the issue of entry into a Pan-European Party without a full ballot of the UKIP membership.
At the meeting on February 7th  the NEC agreed the program below in principle and it is now under way. The timetable for the consultation with the members being determined by the need to make a decision before the deadline in November 2011 for going into such a party, or not, in 2012.
Independence News published with opening 2,000 word statements and notification of the program for consultation with members
(i.e. intention to hold regional meetings and request for potential speakers to contact appropriate coordinator; explanation that postal ballot of all members will be concluded in September immediately after the Annual Conference; notification that the P-EP will be subject to a debate at main conference.
2,000 word statements and initial videos go online; request for member’s letters and a facility to ask questions provided on line. (Letters restricted to 200 words and noted that they must not be libellous or contain inappropriate language or personal attacks).
Dates, venues and times for regional debates published in Independence Magazine. Notification of telephone phone-in also given. Yes and No camps given on-line opportunity to respond to the top 3 questions asked on line or by letter since March. A second short video could be added to website.
Regional debates with 30 second vox pop video clips (equal number from each side) posted onto the website. Each side to be allowed to hand out literature. Max 2 sides A4.
Pre-conference Independence Magazine, each side to be allowed one page summing up. Ballot papers sent out.
Main Conference Debate
Ballots to be returned by end of Month.
Venues/dates for these debates will be arranged and funded by individual regions. This was put to the Regional Chairman’s’ meeting on Tuesday [Feb 2011] and they were asked to confirm which regions would be holding an event as soon as possible.
Dates and Venues need not be confirmed at this point. The number/locations of meetings for the Leadership Hustings would be the agreed starting point.
Currently confirmed debates are being held at:
Saturday June 4th starting at 2.00 p.m.
Venue Lyne Hall, Lyne Lane, Chertsey, Surrey KT16 0AN
Sunday 5th June from 2pm to 5pm. Tiverton Best Western Hotel.
Wednesday 15th June from 7 till 9pm. Venue The Counting House Pub in the City.
July 16th after their Regional Rally. Start time for Rally 10:30am. Start time for Debate 1:15 doors open for 1:30pm start. Colchester Football Club Stadium.
These dates and venues will be published in the next edition of the Independence News Magazine.
As the P-EP debate Umpire appointed by the NEC I agreed to chair the meetings which would have two representatives from each side on the platform. An opening statement from each side (10 minutes Max) followed by open floor for an hour then closing statements of 10 minutes from each side would give about a 90 minute program! There would NOT be a vote at these meetings as people may then expect that to have some weight at the final decision.
Trevor Colman MEP has agreed to coordinate the No campaign and I am awaiting a decision on who will fulfil this role for the Yes side. These two individuals will coordinate the speakers for their sides. The March Independence Magazine will include the fact that these debates are going to be held; a description of their format and an appeal for people who may wish to be on the platform representing the two camps to contact the appropriate coordinator.
Please note this is the outline program in principle. More details, like the actual ballot question, the mechanism for distributing ballot papers and how the count will be conducted, will be decided as the program develops. I am taking as my brief that when the ballot is held every member will be in a position to make an informed yes or no decision. The next stage is to arrange a meeting with the two coordinators to agree ground rules.
Here it is http://curia.europa.eu/en/actu/communiques/cp01/aff/cp0146en.htm
Press and Information Division
PRESS RELEASE No 46/01
2 October 2001
Joined Cases T-222/99, T-327/99 and T-329/99
Jean-Claude Martinez and Charles de Gaulle v European Parliament
Front national v European Parliament
Emma Bonino and Others v European Parliament
THE COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE DISMISSES THE ACTIONS BROUGHT BY MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT AND THE FRONT NATIONAL AGAINST THE ACT OF 14 SEPTEMBER 1999 INTERPRETING THE RULE OF PROCEDURE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONCERNING THE FORMATION OF POLITICAL GROUPS
The Court considers that the obligation on those forming a group to declare a political affinity does not conflict with Community law. Consequently, it confirms that the formation of the TDI Group is incompatible with the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament.
Article 29 of the Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament, concerning the formation of political groups, provides that Members may form themselves into groups according to their political affinities. Following the European elections in June 1999, new political groups were formed in the Parliament for the 1999-2004 legislative period.
The rules of constitution of the Groupe Technique des Députés Indépendants - groupe mixte - (TDI) provided that its Members affirmed their total political independence of one another.
On 14 September 1999 the European Parliament adopted an act on the interpretation of Article 29 of its Rules of Procedure. That interpretation was to the effect that "The formation of a group which openly rejects any political character and all political affiliation between its Members is not acceptable within the meaning of this Rule".
In the three Joined Cases the Members concerned and the Front national requested the Court of First Instance to annul that act of the European Parliament, whereby the rules of the TDI group were declared to be incompatible with the Rules of Procedure.
On an application to suspend the operation of that act, the President of the Court of First Instance ordered on 25 November 1999 the suspension of the operation of that act preventing the formation of a political group. The Court of First Instance delivers its judgment on the main action today.
The Court points out that only acts relating exclusively to the internal organisation of the Parliament's work are precluded from being the subject-matter of an application for annulment.
The act of 14 September 1999, which concerns the interpretation of the Rule concerning the formation of political groups, and the adoption of which in plenary session gave rise to a declaration that the TDI group was not in conformity with the Rules, cannot be deemed, the Court considered, to fall within that category of acts, and must therefore be capable of forming the subject-matter of a review as to its legality by the Community judicature, since it has legal consequences as regards the conditions under which Members may exercise their electoral mandate.
The Court considers that the condition concerning political affinity in the formation of political groups is an imperative one in view, in particular, of the reference consistently made to the political groups in the organisation of the European Parliament. The requirement of political affinity does not preclude the Members from expressing different political opinions on occasion, in accordance with the principle of independence of the European electoral mandate laid down in the 1976 Act on the election of representatives to the European Parliament by universal suffrage.
Such conduct, the Court declares, differs from a declared requirement that there be no political affinity in the formation of a particular group. Members who declare that they are forming a political group must be presumed to share political affinities, however slight, and the Parliament has the power to examine whether such a declaration is properly founded. Any indication that the members of a group seek to avoid any risk of being perceived as sharing political affinities, and the deliberate exclusion of such affinities, is sufficient to warrant the Parliament's finding that the members concerned are openly denying any political affinity.
The Court of First Instance considers that the twofold requirement of political affinity and of belonging to more than one Member State in order to form a political group enables local political particularities to be transcended and to promote the European integration envisaged by the Treaty and the emergence of political parties at European level as a factor in such integration. The Court considers those to be legitimate objectives and the difference in treatment that that implies as between the members of a political group and those who are not members of a group (as regards the rights conferred on groups by other Rules) is not to be regarded as discrimination.
Moreover, whilst the principle of democracy is one of the bases of the European Union it does not prevent Parliament from adopting internal measures of organisation, provided that they are compatible with that principle. Nevertheless, the Court considers that these actions do not seek to determine whether the Parliament's internal provisions conferring certain rights on political groups are compatible with that principle.
It also considers that the requirement to be organised in political groups is an appropriate and necessary means of attaining those objectives bearing in mind the specific features of the Parliament, the conditions under which it must operate and the institutional tasks and objectives attributed to it.
Lastly, the Court considers that those rules do not conflict with the principle of freedom of association laid down in Article 11 of the European Convention on Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, a principle protected by Community law. Similarly, the parliamentary traditions of the Member States do not warrant the conclusion that the formation of a political group by Members declaring that they abjure any political affinity would be possible in most of the national parliaments.
Toby Mickelthwaite has said:
My report identified outstanding questions, listed below.
Maybe someone from each camp could supply answers. Then we can review whether the facts are all agreed. Once that has happened the answer to the debate may appear to us through the mist.
Quote: “For a party to become a Europarty it must meet the following criteria: it must have participated, or intend to participate, in elections to the European Parliament”. In 2014 will we be campaigning as UKIP or not? If not then our PEPP does not seem to meet the criteria to exist. If we are going to campaign under a name other than UKIP then we shall NOT be promoting the brand properly. Can the yes-camp assure us that all our leaflets, broadcasts, posters and billboards in the 2014 EU election will be branded UKIP and will not mention any other party?
Quote: “Europarties have the exclusive right to campaign during the European elections”. Is this true? If so, can UKIP contest EU elections?
Quote: “either it [the PEPP] must have received at least 3% of the votes cast in each of those Member States at the most recent European Parliament elections…”. Can our PEPP use UKIP’s vote (about 16%) to help meet this criterion?
Quote: “it must observe the founding principles of the European Union, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law”. Is there a risk that a European Judge might decide this to mean that our PEPP (by not accepting the idea of ever closer union) is breaking the rules. The consequence could be severe. This risk seems to need evaluation by counsel. Has that been sought? Indeed has UKIP sought counsel’s opinion on the whole PEPP matter? Can we all see that opinion?
Quote: “it must get at least 25% of its budget from sources other than its European Union funding”. The up-to-date figure is 15%. The consequences of this rule need to be clarified to us. “The maximum amount paid to the beneficiary by the European Parliament may not exceed 85 % of the eligible operating costs of political parties at European level”. So will we get the 85% or might we get less?
Quote: “it [the PEPP] must not accept donations exceeding €12,000 per year and per donor”. Does this rule limit UKIP’s donation?
Quote: “it [the PEPP] must not accept more than 40% of a national political party's annual budget”. UKIP’s current annual budget is £400,000, though this may have to rise to cope with the payment to our PEPP. It seems legal for UKIP to raise what is needed from individuals, since there is no upper limit on donations from individuals to UK parties, I believe. Confirmations needed.
Is it agreed by the yes-camp that UKIP will have to pay in a large sum every year to our PEPP? And that UKIP will not get any of that money back (because that would be illegal)? How much money is involved? Have we established who will pay that money into UKIP?
If we join a PEP and get all this money into the PEPP, what exactly will it be spent on? Can the NEC and the yes-camp guarantee that it will be so spent? If the idea is to set up a think tank in London, then why has this not happened already using existing MEP allowances?
What is the benefit to UKIP and its branches of this PEPP?
“Appropriations received from the Community budget may only be used to meet expenditure directly linked to the objectives set out in the party's political programme.” Our PEPP will have to submit its political programme to the EU. Should we submit to such a rule?
What is the opinion of UKIP’s major donors on this whole matter?
THE IMPLICATION BEING - UKIP has a backer of substance let alone more!!!
IF this is the case why is the party claiming that the in house comic has not been published due to lack of ready funds!!
It is also noted that the rules for the debate are to be drawn up by the corrupt clowns on The NEC!!! in April - well since the Party forgot Strasbourg plenary was this week the NEC meeting will be the 11th. they may be a tad busy TRYING to dig their way out of the mess Farage & Pearson got them into with their pack of lies relative to Nikki Sinclaire - now finding Steve Crowther still has no 'professional' idea let alone a solution and now they will either have to pay HUGE damages or act with some ethics and fire Mike Nattrass & Trevor Colman to LOOK as if they have a clue what they are doing!
Clearly they don't!