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.

Wednesday, 15 June 2011



Quote Originally Posted by Barbara Booker View Post
Last week, Richard Allen posted to this forum: "The idea that UKIP as a whole should join a PEP has been quietly dropped. The proposal before the membership is that the MEPs should join a PEP".

Five days later the party website is still asking, "Should UKIP join a Pan-European Political Party?"

The AGAINST side is still saying, "If UKIP joins or becomes a pan-European party . . ."

The FOR side is still saying, "The scheme involves UKIP joining a European political party".

Neither side gives any indication whatsoever that the debate is now about whether just the MEPs, and not UKIP as a whole, should join a PEP.

So, Richard, what is the source of your information? How reliable do you judge it to be?

It is inconceivable that a fundamental change in a question of such importance for UKIP, part way through its consultation process, could even have been suggested without the party leader's authorization, but did you hear it direct from Nigel Farage himself or from someone else?

Have you confirmed your information with both co-ordinators, and asked them why they haven't updated the FOR and AGAINST statements on UKIP's website? What they have written is now totally irrelevant to an altered proposal.

Exactly how is that proposal now worded?
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.

Quote Originally Posted by Richard Allen View Post
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.
Junior Member Bonanzai! is just starting out
Join Date Dec 2009
The normal way of organising a ballot is to put the question, then debate the question, then vote on it. The EU and its friends are quite rightly despised for the way they skew such things. It seems that yet again the walking Pan-European pandemic Nigel Farage is learning well from the masters on his many and long visits to Brussels.

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

No comments:

Post a Comment