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.

Friday, 3 June 2011

UKIP MEPs take Euro Parliament to court over state funding of parties

UKIP MEPs take Euro Parliament to court over state funding of parties 

For Immediate Release 28th January 2004

UKIP MEPs take Euro Parliament to court over state funding of parties

The U.K Independence Party's three MEPs today joined with colleagues from across Europe to launch a legal action against the European Parliament and the Council of Europe over European Union funding of political parties.

The legal action, launched in the name of the pan-national SOS Democracy group, is being brought by 23 MEPs representing Britain, Denmark, France, the Netherlands and Sweden. SOS Democracy includes 2 maverick British Conservative MEPs who oppose their party's stance on state funding.

U.K. Independence Party MEP Nigel Farage said, "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.

"As if that was not bad enough, the legislation adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will discriminate against certain political parties. It requires the recipients of European funding to subscribe to pre-set political ideals, such as agreement with greater European integration.

"This is using legislation to force parties to conform, and sets a dangerous precedent by effectively allowing the European Union to award huge sums of taxpayers money to parties which it approves of, whilst impoverishing those it disapproves of." ENDS

Notes to editors:

The legal documentation can be found on-line at

The case has been filed with the European Court of First Instance, and relates to Regulation Nr 2004/2003 on rules governing political parties at European level and the rules regarding their funding

The 2 British Conservative MEPs who have joined the action are Daniel Hannan and Roger Helmer

For further information, please contact:

Nigel Farage MEP,
Jeffrey Titford MEP,
Graham Booth MEP,
Statute and financing of political parties at European level (amendments to the Rules of Procedure)   08-03-2004

Verbatim report of proceedings


Statute and financing of political parties at European level (amendments to the Rules of Procedure)

Farage (EDD). – Madam President, I am very pleased to say that all three UKIP MEPs have joined together with 20 other Members of this House. We come from five different political groups and from the non-attached Members, and yes, we are fighting this case at the Court of Justice in Luxembourg.

There are several reasons for doing so, but the key reason is one of simple principle: I do not think there is any evidence that suggests that the voters in my country or in any other country are happy for their money directly to finance political parties at a European level. Certainly the feedback I get in the UK tells me that the perception is that far too much money is already being spent on political projects, both at home and most certainly - of all places - here in Strasbourg.

I have also felt, ever since Nice and Article 191, that this idea that you qualify if you conform to the democratic principles of the Union is potentially a dangerous one. What Mr Corbett says about the principles of the Union may sound fine, but we are seeing shifts and changes in the law. Perhaps, in three or four years' time, criticism of the Union itself may mean that you no longer conform to the democratic principles of the Union and therefore you are not just denied funding, but possibly even banned. The motivation is clear: it is to create a European demos which at the moment simply does not exist.

I have some difficulty with the issue of the rule of law. It seems to me that, post-Constitution, some in this place - and I am one of them - will not recognise that new rule of law because we will only be able to leave the EU on the terms of the EU. I do not believe it would be a legitimate act for a British Government to sign us up to the Constitution on behalf of our people on these terms, and in those circumstances I should be perfectly happy not to qualify for this funding.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

No comments:

Post a Comment