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.

Tuesday, 21 June 2011



Quote Originally Posted by Richard Allen View Post
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.
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

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

No comments:

Post a Comment