30-Jun-2011 - Mike SMITH of UKIP Tries Manfully to Keep Up!

 30-Jun-2011 - Mike SMITH of UKIP Tries Manfully to Keep Up!

Hi,


I see Mike Smith who was recently announced as having stood down as the long term Branch Chairman of UKIP Gloucester is struggling manfully to keep up to speed on the latest leaks from the sieve and machinations by the corrupt in UKIP to ajust AFTER THE DEBATE the question for the internal referendum most likely to obtain the vote the leadership would seem to favour for their utterly corrupt leadership team and its parasites.


Dishonest and corrupt individuals like Stuart Agnew NFU MEP, Mick McGough and their ilk - proven repeatedly to be liars and cheats.

Astonishingly this sort of dishonest chicanery and corrupt undemocratic behaviour is not brought to us by The EU this time but by their long term trough dwellers UKIP - which is even more concerning as they are the party that advocates as part of a style of government that there are regular referendums for the voters - yet when they hold one it is as corrupt as The EU and almost as corrupt as The Devolution of Wales referendum where the rules were changed 7 times on the day of the count and ballot boxes were stuffed with Yes votes whilst NO votes were destroyed or removed - This is devolving into the same level of dishonesty and farce that has come with UKIP leadership elections on a regular basis! 

Mike Smith Gloucester General Offline Position in UKIP: ex-Chairman, Gloucester & Gloucestershire Branches. UKIP Branch: Gloucester Full Name: Mike Smith Posts: 328 Keep UKIP Independent!

Re: The Thick and Thin Of PEPPs « Reply #69 on: June 30, 2011, 11:44:09 AM » The situation regarding the wording of the Question to be put to members has descended into absolute farce. I was told last Monday by a very reliable source that the current version of the Question is; "Should the UK Independence Party's MEPs join a European Political Party as defined under Regulation EC2003/2004?" This had not been announced officially because some members of the NEC had not been contacted.  Consequently, the debates at Birmingham and Liverpool went ahead based on the original version of the Question as printed in Independence.

Report to moderator   Logged Keep UKIP Independent!     Say NO to P.E.Ps.          (Pan-European Parties)

.

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future 

&

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com  
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com  
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com  
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com  
TWITTER: Greg_LW
 

 Please Be Sure To
 .. 
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU 

Related articles

• #0572* - Noted That Lies of Mick McGough are Officially Edited (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0573* - Birmingham UKIP PEPP YES/NO DEBATE (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0569* - UKIP Seems NOT to Understand Professionalism! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0574* - Gerard BATTEN's Views on Joining A PEPP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0550* - UKIP As Ever Seem Very Confused - This MAY Help! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0559* - SEEMS ONLY LIES & LIARS SUPPORT PEPPs (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0494* - Ukip Spokesman Makes Ukip Look Stupid (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)

Gerard BATTEN's Views on Joining A PEPP

 Gerard BATTEN's Views on Joining A PEPP

Hi,

although I know Gerard Batten is far from bright and also has little understanding of morality, ethics or Justice here are his views as a list MEP for UKIP regarding membership of a PEPP.


He does rather make a fool of himself in part when he claims he is a withdrawalist and would not wish to be associated with  a reformist PEPP.


After a couple of years as a member of the extremist, racist, anti homosexual, anti Jewish and pro EU membership Reformist EFD with no sign that he will ever develop a backbone of his own - One has to wonder why Gerard Batten introduces this outright dishonesty so undermining the rest of his opinions and claims.


I did however point out he really isn't very bright and when it comes to backbone he is indubitably a spineless coward.

Why I will be voting No to UKIP joining a European Political Party:

by: Gerald Batten MEP

I have taken a pragmatic approach to this issue and I base my decision to vote No in the internal ballot in September on the available information. In my view there are two main issues to be considered before making a decision. . 

Firstly, can UKIP MEPs or members join a European Political Party without compromising our withdrawalist principles? . 

Secondly, if the answer to the first question is ‘yes’, can the money or resources available be used to assist UKIP and our cause of British withdrawal from the EU? 

Would joining a European Political Party compromise UKIP’s withdrawalist principles? 

The honest answer to that we don’t know. 

We don’t know what it is we are being asked to join. We are being asked to sign a blank cheque and give blanket approval for UKIP MEPs and members to join an unknown quantity. What is the Constitution or ‘Statute’ of the party in question? Either we haven’t been told or it doesn’t yet exist. 

This ballot question should not even be posed at this time. It should wait until we can be presented with a specific European party constitution or statute that we can consider. 

If such a party were for example the ‘European Party of EU Withdrawlists’ specifically dedicated to nation states unilaterally leaving the EU then I might consider joining - but that is not what is on offer. 

The only statute that we have is that of the European Alliance for Freedom. The statute of this party is in the public domain and can be found on the internet. 

This includes the aim to: “campaign for a non-centralised, transparent, flexible and democratically controlled EU…” This is clearly not a withrawalist party but a reformist one. Do you want to reform the EU or to leave? I was a founder member of UKIP in September 1993 and it was I who proposed the name UK Independence Party. 

I am an unconditional withdrawalist and I would not join a reformist party. 

Can the money or resources available be used to assist our cause of British withdrawal from the EU? The basis on which European political parties will take part in the European elections in 2014 has not yet been decided by an EU Directive and transposed into national law. 

The practicalities of how a list of 25 or so candidates will campaign across the European Union has not been finalised and is causing some practical difficulties for those drafting the legislation. 

However one thing we know is that is that the list of candidates will fight under the name of their party, e.g. the ‘European Alliance for Freedom’ - not the UK Independence Party. 

The voters will most likely be presented with two ballot papers: one will bear UKIP’s name the other will not, it will bear the name of the European political parties. 

This will not directly help UKIP or our withdrawalist cause. 

The money available cannot be spent on UKIP. It can only be used on European political parties. The EU’s regulations clearly state the money cannot be spent on: 

. 

Campaign costs for referenda and elections (except for European Elections for a European Party). 

. 

Direct or indirect funding for national parties, election candidates and political foundations both at national and European level. . Debts and debt service charges 

PUT SIMPLY: UKIP CANNOT USE THIS MONEY

European Political Foundations: 

Great play is being made of the money that could be used to set up a political foundation as a ‘think tank’ to assist our cause. But once again, who will determine what this think tank produces? A foundation will be affiliated to a European political party.

We have the same problem as in our first question: what will be its platform?Will it produce studies advocating EU withdrawal or just EU reform? We don’t know. 

Is this issue similar to the one UKIP faced in the 1990s concerning taking up seats in the European Parliament? No. In 1994, as UKIP’s European Election Organiser, I argued that UKIP should fight on the platform of not taking up our seats in the European Parliament. After some years of careful consideration I changed my view in 2001. 

I was able to change that view because taking up our seats did not compromise UKIP’s withdrawalist principles. UKIP fights European elections on our terms – not those of the European Union or foreigners influencing or determining our party constitution or manifesto. 

Conclusion: 

The Yes campaign website in this ballot have kindly referred to me as follows, “Nobody who has the privilege of working with Gerard would describe him for a second as an ‘integrationist’ or a ‘federalist’. But to his substantial credit, he remains fully and properly engaged with the enemy at the front”

.

I am grateful for their generosity in acknowledging my efforts. But because I am an uncompromising, unconditional withdrawalist. I will not vote Yes to UKIP members joining a European political party until I know what it is, what it stands for, and that it will campaign for outright withdrawal from the EU. 

I intend to vote No in this ballot, and I hope that a majority of my fellow UKIP members will do likewise. When we are presented with a specific statute for a European political party, and a proposal for the work of a Political Foundation we can make an informed decision. 

Not until then. 

The horse must come before the cart.

To view the original article CLICK HERE
INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&

Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to

Reclaim YOUR Future 

&

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future 

&

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com 

DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com  

General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com  
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com  
TWITTER: Greg_LW
 

 Please Be Sure To 
..
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU 

Related articles

• #0573* - Birmingham UKIP PEPP YES/NO DEBATE (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0559* - SEEMS ONLY LIES & LIARS SUPPORT PEPPs (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• Prof. Tim CONGDON, Gerard BATTEN UKIP MEP, COMMENTS on BETRAYAL 27-Oct-2010 (eualliance.blogspot.com)
• 18-Jun-2011 - SEEMS ONLY LIES & LIARS SUPPORT PEPPs (mike-mcgough.blogspot.com)
• #0572* - Noted That Lies of Mick McGough are Officially Edited (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0534* - BAROSSO Admits PEPPs Are An EU AIM (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0529* - UKIP PEPP Debate Was Insultingly Amateur & Crassly Illinformed! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0408* - UKIP Seems Willing To Prostitute Principles For MORE Tax Payers' Money! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• PAN EU POLITICAL PARTIES by Tim CONGDON 28-Oct-2010 (tcongdon.blogspot.com)
• #0541* - Whilst UKIP Squabble Like Ferrets In A Sack... SINCLAIRE Ploughs On (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• APRIL - Tim CONGDON - 'No' to a Pan-European Party (tcongdon.blogspot.com)
• Notes on the huge downside to UKIP joining a pan EUropean party 28-Oct-2010 (tcongdon.blogspot.com)

29-Jun-2011 - Noted That Lies of Mick McGough are Officially Edited

 29-Jun-2011 - Noted That Lies of Mick McGough are Officially Edited

 Please Be Sure To 
..
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

&amp; Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&amp;

To Leave-The-EU  

 .

~Noted That Lies of Mick McGough are Officially Edited!!
.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
Hi,

I note the lies and distortions presented so dishonestly by The Essex Oik and habitual liar Mick McGough have had to be edited out of the dishonest pro PEPP video seeking to con UKIP members into supporting his lies.

Nothing new there then!

Interestingly the PEPP presentation debate in Birmingham on Monday night led to a very clear rejection of Mick McGough's sales patter but it was almost amusing for the audience of around 60 to have the smug, arrogant and oleagenous Michael Greaves there trying and in his obvious incompetence almost succeeding to make even Mick McGough seem intelligent!

As Mick McGough has been proven to be a liar, a low life and completely untrustworthy in that not content with his childish attempts at bullying he has even leaked UKIP confidential material to try to seem important.

The extent of his sycophancy is understandable as his insecurity would lead him to cross the country for the opening of an envelope if he thought he would have an opportunmity to bore people with his mumbled and self congratulatory behaviour.

What astonishes me is that otherwise well meaning if somewhat meaningless organisations like The CIB are prepared to be associated with this egregious piece of filth.

Yet more astonishing is that The Freedom Association, debased as it is since the death of Norris McWhirter its founder, has felt it apposite to surrender its accounts to a treasurer with a track record of dishonesty, corruption and lies.

It is however good to see that Steve Allison did manage to force the pro PEPP group of scoundrels to remove the lies and distortions by Mick McGough from their video presentation.

It was interesting to note having blown any chance of being taken seriously ever again little John Ison sat furtively considering whose boots to lick next but with no opinion of his own - perhaps the police have finally got around to feeling his collar over the thefts from Nikki Sinclaire and the false accusations he made based it seems on 'ajustments' he deliberately made to the record and material he boasted of having stolen - No wonder little Guy Basnett would not publish his fantasies and the Times used allegedly more than any other word portraying Ison as untrustworthy - how right they were!


It is a tragedy that after 18 years in the political field that UKIP are unable to field anyone of probity and charisma to sell its views even internally manfully as Mike Smith tried, particularly in defence of the drab and tedious Trevor Colman - however much Mick Nattrass yodelled his support from the back ;-)


I think it is fair to say that UKIP would, without the efforts of Mike Nattrass' firplace chappy Derek Bennett, have probably not managed to raise an audience of more than a dozen or two but Derek's efforts did up the crowd somewhat.


Interestingly in direct opposition to Stuart Agnew who has openly stated he will consider joining a PEPP for his direct gain (no doubt under instruction from his masters The NFU) he has stated regardless of the vote he will join a PEPP (See Tavistock meeting video on CLICK HERE)


Under direct questioning when asked if the vote had any meaning and was it binding on the MEPs/Party as a closing question many will remember Steve Crowthers reply in which he gave assurances that it would be binding.


This may well prove to be Steve Crowther's swan song having laid his neck on the block and the details which came to me this afternoon are now published at CLICK HERE


Should anyone wish to read the rules for PEPPs they can be found at CLICK HERE

For Details of Pan EU Political Parties in The EU CLICK HERE

& for aggregation of articles & comments on PEPPs CLICK HERE

For details of One of The PEPPs Godfrey Bloom has joined CLICK HERE

For details of the vile extremist & racist Group Farage & UKIP are in CLICK HERE
. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&amp;

Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to

Reclaim YOUR Future 

&amp;

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future 

&amp;

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com DO MAKE USE of LINKS &amp; &gt;Right Side Bar&lt; Also:

Details &amp; Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com  
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com  
TWITTER: Greg_LW
 

 Please Be Sure To 
..
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

&amp; Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&amp;

To Leave-The-EU  

Related articles

• #0559* - SEEMS ONLY LIES & LIARS SUPPORT PEPPs (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• 18-Jun-2011 - SEEMS ONLY LIES & LIARS SUPPORT PEPPs (mike-mcgough.blogspot.com)
• #0569* - UKIP Seems NOT to Understand Professionalism! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0438* - APRIL - 2 VERY SOUND REASONS to Vote NO to PEPP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• 12-Mar-2011 UKIP NEC Member Mick McGOUGH In HIS GUTTER! (mike-mcgough.blogspot.com)
• #0491* - UKIP SPIN COMING UNRAVELLED for Lack of Trustworth Spokesmen! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• 23-Mar-2011 - UKIP: more on Mike McGough. from: Junius Blog (mike-mcgough.blogspot.com)
• #0536* - Another Good UKIP Point WITHOUT A PEPP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0558* - Can We Be Sure UKIP Wasn't Elected In Leicester? (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0384* - UKIP May Value The Liar Mick McGOUGH But They Are Alone! (mike-mcgough.blogspot.com)
• #0195* - Mick McTROUGH HAS PROVED A MOST APPOSITE NAME FOR UKIP's Mike McGOUGH. (mike-mcgough.blogspot.com)
• The Standard of Intelligence of UKIP NEC Member Mick McTROUGH!! (mike-mcgough.blogspot.com)
• UKIP & The EFD's STAGGERING RACIST STUPIDITY (godfrey-bloom.blogspot.com)

28-Jun-2011 - Legality of Pan EU Party funding in UK/EU elections

 28-Jun-2011 - Legality of Pan EU Party funding in UK/EU elections

Legality of Pan EU Party funding in UK/EU elections.

Paul Perrin made this Freedom of Information request to Electoral Commission

Currently waiting for a response from Electoral Commission, they must respond promptly and normally no later than 26 July 2011 (details).

Paul Perrin

27 June 2011

Dear Electoral Commission,

I understand that 'Pan EU Parties' (PEP) are allowed to run in and
to campaign in elections to the European Union (EU) parliament.

I also understand that people who would be barred by law from
donating to a UK party, are perfectly free to make donations to
these PEPs.

I would like to know if you have undertaken any work looking at
this situation which appears to by-pass laws specifically brought
in by the UK parliament at Westminster to keep elections in the UK
uncontaminated by money from dubious sources.

So can you tell me if any work has been done, if any work is in
progress, or if any work is planned to look at this? If so can you
provide me with details of what they work was/is or will be and any
terms of reference and any available results?

Yours faithfully,

Paul Perrin

Stephanie Payne
Electoral Commission

27 June 2011

I'm now out of the office until Thursday 30 June, and will respond to your email on my return.

If you have an urgent query, or are emailing with regard to a Freedom of Information request, please forward your email to Janice Reid and Danny Creighton.

[email address]<mailto:[email address]>
[email address]<mailto:[email address]>

Kind regards,
Stephanie

Stephanie Payne
Information Adviser
The Electoral Commission
3 Bunhill Row
London EC1Y 8YZ

Tel: 020 7271 0653
Fax: 020 7271 0505
www.electoralcommission.org.uk<http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/>

Danny Creighton
Electoral Commission

28 June 2011

Our ref: FOI 42/11

Dear Paul Perrin,

Thank you for your request under the Freedom of Information Act dated 27 June 2011.

You have requested:

I understand that 'Pan EU Parties' (PEP) are allowed to run in and
to campaign in elections to the European Union (EU) parliament.

I also understand that people who would be barred by law from
donating to a UK party, are perfectly free to make donations to
these PEPs.

I would like to know if you have undertaken any work looking at
this situation which appears to by-pass laws specifically brought
in by the UK parliament at Westminster to keep elections in the UK
uncontaminated by money from dubious sources.

So can you tell me if any work has been done, if any work is in
progress, or if any work is planned to look at this? If so can you
provide me with details of what they work was/is or will be and any
terms of reference and any available results?

The Commission aims to respond to requests for information promptly and within the statutory timeframe of twenty working days.

You may expect to receive a reply sent from the Commission by 25 July 2011.

Yours sincerely,

Danny Creighton
Information Adviser
The Electoral Commission
3 Bunhill Row
London EC1Y 8YZ
Tel: 020 7271 0554
Fax: 020 7271 0500
www.electoralcommission.org.uk<http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk>

Make sure you are registered to vote<http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk>
Follow us on Twitter<http://twitter.com/ElectoralCommUK>

Democracy matters

Things to do with this request

Anyone:

• Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)

Paul Perrin only:

• Reply to Danny Creighton
• Update the status of this request
• Request an internal review

Electoral Commission only:

• Respond to request

To view the original of this correspondence CLICK HERE

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&

Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to

Reclaim YOUR Future 

&

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future 

&

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com  

DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com  

General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com  

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com 

  TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To 

..

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU

27-Jun-2011 - BIrmingham UKIP PEPP YES/NO DEBATE

27-Jun-2011 - BIrmingham UKIP PEPP YES/NO DEBATE

Posting made to the blog 11:30hrs. 29-Jun-2011 


For a further report on this meeting see: CLICK HERE

Nigel Farage's Official salaried boot licker Michael Greaves stated:
'UKIP Members are to stupid & naive to understand the issues'
no doubt mimicking His Master's voice he continued:
'he knows understands the issues because he works in the EU parliament'.

It seems he has learned little and is very naive regarding communication skills as his presentation, like Mick McGough's was unconvincing, demeaning and dragged UKIP into the corrupt gutter they clearly share.

UKIP: Bloody nose for Yes Team and Farage at West Midland PEP Debate!

Farage’s plans for UKIP to join a PEP pan European party are being dealt severe blows in regional debates across the country where, so far, the reaction has been overwhelmingly a 90% No!We have been told, this was last night expressed more in the West Midlands than anywhere else - a region devastated by UKIPs national infighting and the de-selection of popular local MEP Nikki Sinclaire.

A packed room, we are told of 50-60 people heard from both sides. The 'No' campaign was represented by Trevor Colman MEP and Mike Smith. Mick 'Porky Pie' McGough and Michael 'who ate all the pies' Greaves represented the 'Yes' campaign.

The 'NO' side stole the show arguing on principle with passion (notably Mike Smith), that UKIP should stay true to its withdrawalist principles. This was greeted with constant cheering and clapping from the floor.

The 'Yes' argument, as always, centred around money, money and more money!

Unfortunately for Farage and his sycophants this wasn’t lost on the audience! McGough and Greaves were clearly out of favour with the audience. Indeed, they only received a polite clap from two or three people after delevering their ten minute pitch. We also note that their replies to questions from the audience were met in silence, in complete contrast to the response to the no side.

Michael Greaves even felt it necessary to claim angrily to a question from a member that they were too naive to understand the issues and that he knew best as he worked in the European Parliament! This drew hisses and shouts from the audience.

Michael then attacked were made on those MEPs that had left the EFD. This resulted in a passionate reply from Mike Smith.

We are pleased to note that this drew the biggest applause of the evening in responding. He stated that Trevor, Nikki and Mike were right to leave the EFD and that they had done so because of their principles. He also expressed anger that they were constantly being attacked in certain quarters for doing what every UKIP MEP should have done - leave the EFD! He then pointed out that they were all actively campaigning for the Euro-realist cause by producing literature, leaflets, websites and petitions.

How sad that Steve Crowther (chair) tried to silence Mike. And this was despite having just allowed criticism from the other side. You really couldn’t make it up!

We suspect the West Midlands might hold the biggest opposition to the EFD than anywhere else!

The yes side continued to lie in suggesting that the party would receive funding from 13 MEPs (as stated in March’s edition of Independence News). This was clearly a deliberate attempt to mislead UKIPPERS as only a maximum of 9 UKIP MEPs would join a PEP.

Let us not forget that Mike, Nikki and Trevor are adamant that they are not going join a PEP. And have they forgotten that Bannerman has now left UKIP for the Tories? Quoting figure after figure based on 13 MEPs (promising a third more funding than they would be entitled to) is yet again another example of the level of dishonesty that we have come to expect from the 'Yes' campaign!

We will leave you with some words from Farage - before he went native - which are now being repeated at regional meetings across the country.

‘’We are opposed on principle to the idea of state funding of political parties, either nationally or at a European level. It is not an appropriate use of tax-payers’ money”.

Posted by Junius at 11:14
To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

For Details of Pan EU Political Parties in The EU CLICK HERE

& for aggregation of articles & comments on PEPPs CLICK HERE

For details of One of The PEPPs Godfrey Bloom has joined CLICK HERE

For details of the vile extremist & racist Group Farage & UKIP are in CLICK HERE
. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&amp;

Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to

Reclaim YOUR Future 

&amp;

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future 

&amp;

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com 

DO MAKE USE of LINKS &amp; &gt;Right Side Bar&lt; Also:

Details &amp; Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com  

General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com  
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com  
TWITTER: Greg_LW
 

 Please Be Sure To 
..
Re-TWEET my Twitterings

&amp; Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&amp;

To Leave-The-EU 

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.

tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

on: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com

Related articles

• Nikki SINCLAIRE RESIGNS FROM PAN EU EFD PARTY GROUPING (efd-eu.blogspot.com)
• 06-Jun-2011 - UKIP Apology Makes EFD Membership Repugnant for Honourable Supporters of UKIP (efd-eu.blogspot.com)
• #0410* - ex UKIP MEP Nikki SINCLAIRE WHISTLE BLOWER IN MEDIA! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0506* - UKIP ARE CLEARLY IN DISARRAY & SPLIT (Irreprably?) (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0536* - Another Good UKIP Point WITHOUT A PEPP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)

21-Jun-2011 - UKIP IS GIVING ITS NAME TO A SCAM!

21-Jun-2011 - UKIP IS GIVING ITS NAME TO A SCAM!

Originally Posted by Richard Allen

This issue has been discussed widely on the members forum with various well connected people, including those involved with the Yes campaign, saying that the proposal only relates to the MEPs. The No campaign had made no attempt to counter this assertion so I assumed that they accepted it as accurate.

However the latest information I have comes from Party Vice Chairman Steve Allison, the man who is coordinating the debates and the ballot. He has stated that the NEC have not yet decided what the precise wording of the question will be.

Barbara BOOKER, as ever, gives a detailed and comprehensive reply - sadly UKIP as ever, fails to give either an honest or a straightforward reply, in fact I can find no reply on their web site despite the fact that they have been shown to be dishonestly and duplicitously orchestrating a pack of lies seemingly for the personal gain of The MEPs.

I guess we shouldn't be surprised as this would seem to be the style of EUrophile MEPs and without EU membership these little men would once again revert to irrelevance!

 

Barbara BOOKER:

Thank you.

In other words, the consultation is a sham. Debate is pointless if members don't know the question they'll be voting on.

I see that GLW has posted to his blog a message said to be from Steve Allison to Stuart Agnew, regarding a complaint about a claim made by the FOR side.

CLICK HERE

Someone should also draw Mr Allison's attention to Stuart Agnew's unsubstantiated claims re the sums he says would be available in EU grants if UKIP were to join a PEP.

At present, party members wishing to verify claims made by both sides of the debate are unable to do so in the case of Agnew's figures because he gives no indication of how they are arrived at, and the only relevant fact he quotes is incorrect.

Both in his statement and on the FOR side's website much emphasis is placed on the amount UKIP would supposedly benefit from if members vote Yes in the ballot. The banner headline at Say "Yes!" is <Vote "Yes" For £400,000 Each Year>, but that sum is dependent on the total grant received by whichever PEP UKIP joins, and the PEP's grant is in turn directly related to the number of MEPs belonging to it and the number of other PEPs sharing the funding pot.

Stuart Agnew provides no corroboration whatsoever for his claimed figure of 475,000 euros (£400,000 approximately), which he says would be UKIP's share of the PEP and its Foundation's grants. He says only that, "we are advised that the annual allocation of funds would be: for the political party 850,000 euros and for the Think Tank 500,000 euros".

Who advised him? He doesn't say. Which PEP would UKIP be joining? He doesn't say. The number of MEPs the PEP has would be crucial to the size of its grant, so how many MEPs is his figure based on? He doesn't say. The number of other PEPs sharing the funding pot is also crucial, so how many other PEPs is his figure based on? Here he does say, "Presently 10 parties take money from that pot", and he's wrong! The number is 11, as can be seen at http://www.europarl.europa.eu/pdf/gr...ts_parties.pdf

If he means that UKIP will be creating a new PEP, and his figures relate to its anticipated 2012 grant, he must know how many MEPs have agreed to join it or he couldn't have estimated the size of the grant they will attract. So how many, and who are they? Members who wish to check his figures will need to know.

If on the other hand he means that UKIP will be joining one of the 11 existing PEPs - presumably the European Alliance for Freedom (EAF) which Godfrey Bloom has already joined - and his figures are an estimation of the grant the EAF would have qualified for this year had UKIP joined it last November, then his calculations are inaccurate.

(Those interested should go to the European parliament website at Headlines and latest news from the European Parliament, click 'In detail' from the dropdown menu under 'Parliament' at the top of the home page, then 'Grants to political parties and foundations' near the bottom of the column on the left side. This brings up four web pages, all of which have links to tables, reports and other useful information about existing and obsolete PEPs and Foundations).

It will be seen from the table linked from page 2, that the 2011 grant awarded to the Party of the European Left (EL) is 846,936 euros, slightly less than Stuart Agnew claims would be allocated to UKIP's PEP. Most of this sum is directly related to the number of MEPs the EL has which, as can be seen from its website EUROPEAN LEFT: Results, is 25. Therefore, to qualify for a grant of 850,000 euros as Agnew claims UKIP's PEP would, that party would also need 25 MEPs.

The EAF currently has about 6, so even with UKIP's full complement of MEPs it would still have been well short of the number required to qualify for an 850,000 euro grant. If some declined to join, that would reduce the grant even further. Less grant allocated to the PEP (and a similar reduction would apply to the Foundation grant) means much less than 475,000 euros (£400,000 approx) for UKIP, so exactly how has Stuart Agnew calculated this sum around which his whole argument is constructed?

It really isn't good enough to dazzle members with figures plucked off the wall. He needs to explain in detail how he arrived at them.

Sadly in keeping with UKIP leadership team and its remaining MEPs The YES teams web site is amateur in the extreme and treats its readers as fools whilst showing itself to have absolutely no principles, morality or ethics - the sole motivation of every point would seem to be money - well oodles of money - in fact who cares how much orhow it is made up as long as a small band of untrustworthy liars and cheats like Mick McGough, Stuart Agnew etc. can make money out of it.

Much worthy talk of 'Think Tanks' but UKIP has shown over 18 years it is not competent to think, has no one with the intellect to think and isn't quite sure what a think tank might do or how.

Consider - Who is there amongst the favoured few and their claque who has shown ANY ability to think or devise even the simplest of policies, strategy, tactics or vision.

Clearly no one in the YES campaign would be competent they have failed to even think through the result of joining a PEPP and every item they have published produces yet more money, like a magician out of a hat - Yet no two figures are the same nor have they substantiated a single figure, as Barabara Booker and others have proven.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.

tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

on: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com

20-Jun_2011 - In Answer to Noel MATTHEWS Question.

20-Jun_2011 - In Answer to Noel MATTHEWS Question.

Hi,

in answer to the question Noel Matthews asked:

The main concern that I have is about the vote itself. This is a party referendum, but what ar the consequences of the result?

Fundamentally it is clear from Nigel Farage's comment to Trevor Colman at conference last year that if the answer were a binding NO then Nigel believes he would personally loose £1Million a year in funding he controlled and could use as he does now to hire mistresses, praise singers and family.

What I want to see is that all of our MEP's abide by the decision of the members vote, whether it be Yes or No.

What YOU want and what you get are irrelevant to the leadership!

Stuart Agnew gave a fairly unequivocal indication that should we vote No, he will join a PEP anyhow and risk deselection at the next euro elections.

Not fairly! He clearly stated he would pay no cogniscence to democracy and would join - I incline to believe this is because his masters The NFU have told him to.

From the things Trevor Colman has said I can see him refusing if we vote Yes.

It is the ONLY morally acceptable stand point unless you wish to risk prostituting UKIP to extremism and the racism that is prevalent in The EFD Group.

It's all non-binding.

There is no position under law that is binding as EU Law pertains and No Party may excercise a 'whip' in The EU Pretence of a Parliament nor may any MEP be forced to be bound to act in a manner to suit a given party and nor may they represent their constituents in that Parliament they are obliged to represent The EU and its aims!

So what's the point in having it?

None whatsoever - but so also The EU!

Imagine what our opponents will do with the news that despite a party referendum result of X; A, B and C MEPs ignored the result. This plays right into their hands because they can then confidently state that just like the EU, UKIP MEPs are quite willing to ignore a referendum if they do not like the answer.

Don't worry - sadly UKIP have so befouled their image they are seen only as a joke in The EU Parliament and despite the many £Millions they have trousered they have not a single solitary achievem,ent to their name moving Britain closer top the exit - 18 years and NOTHING to show for it other than a small enriched claque.

How anyone cannot see that just shows the lack of political savvy of the entire leadership.

There has been no sign of political savvy in UKIP for many years.

We have collaborated with the EU in making this a devisive issue.

That was their aim and clearly it has worked well!

What should have happened was that each MEP should have been given the chance to make up their own mind.

You are assuming they have the ability! Would YOU be prepared to depend on decisions from Bufton, Bloom, Andreasen, Batten, Agnew etc. as they squabble like ferrets in a sack to keep their snouts in the trough!

That way, those who do not want to compromise their principles are happy and those who want to grab some cash can pat themselves on the head as well.

 Are you saying YOU are prepared to lend your vote to charlatans who deliberately 'compromise their principles' merely for cash!

I fear that whatever the outcome of the vote, it will do more harm than good.

That was the aim of The EU - as far as The EU is concerned they are well aware that the lower the calliber of people the more readily they will sell out their pretence to principles - Look who is backing the YES campaign to see the proof of that statement.
.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.

tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

on: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com