Mike SMITH on Teeside Hustings & UKIP's Abuse of Integrity! 10-Jul-2011

 Mike SMITH on Teeside Hustings & UKIP's Abuse of Integrity! 10-Jul-2011

Mike Smith Gloucester General Offline Position in UKIP: ex-Chairman, Gloucester & Gloucestershire Branches. UKIP Branch: Gloucester Full Name: Mike Smith Posts: 361 Keep UKIP Independent!

Re: FARAGE MUST RESIGN TO SAVE UKIP FROM TOTAL DISINTEGRATION « Reply #301 on: July 10, 2011, 11:15:04 PM » Quote from: polly on July 10, 2011, 10:25:16 PM sadly yes , by those same donkeys who now pay homage to the EU  ! all the more reason to get out . Quote from: Mike Smith Gloucester on July 06, 2011, 08:56:10 PM Polly, Oh, I will continue to fight.  I am just no longer convinced that UKIP is the only way, especially if the vote on PEPPs goes the wrong way. As for all those young men in French cemeteries were they not described as "lions led by donkeys"? I have just returned from my final hustings meeting (in Teeside). It is so sad to hear the arguments of those who want to become even further enmeshed in the workings of the EU.  (Not so much donkeys as flies, gratefully accepting the spider's invitation to come into his parlour.)  They can be summed up in two words, Greed and Hypocrisy. "We don't agree with state funding of political parties but because the others accept it we should too." At least in this meeting we did not get the vitriolic personal attacks on Trevor Colman that have characterised previous meetings (I have now been to 4, Tiverton. Birmingham, Liverpool and Teeside.) Evidence has emerged that the Leadership knew that the issue of PEPPs would be divisive back in 2009 and would necessitate a ballot of members.  (An e-mail from Jonathan Arnott, Party General Secretary, to Alan Wood, then Chairman of the South West Counties Committee.) Still it ploughed ahead, trying to implement it in secret. Thankfully, Trevor Colman had the honesty and courage to expose the moves (probably why the personal attacks were made).  Hence the motion at the Torquay Conference, passed by an overwhelming majority of members despite opposition of Nigel Farage. The spokesman for the Yes campaign had the nerve to blame the SWCC for costing the Party money in holding a members' ballot. The Leadership is clearly hopelessly out of touch with the membership. This will be my last word on the subject until after the result of the ballot is announced.

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

 

 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

• #0583* - Is UKIP Leadership or The BBC The Most 'Homophobic'? (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0586* - Stuart AGNEW NFU MEP Tries To Justify His Dishonesty (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0576* - PEPP Campaigner for UKIP Members Mike SMITH (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0577* - Prostituting UKIP for a Printer!! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0569* - UKIP Seems NOT to Understand Professionalism! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)

Tim Congdon on Pan-European Political Parties (PEPPs) - 12-Jul-2011

Tim Congdon on Pan-European Political Parties (PEPPs) - 12-Jul-2011

Hi,

I regret that the conversion from Excel to blogger is not wildly successful hence SOME of the figure work is a little difficult to puzzle out - If I trip over the data in a more understandable format I will post it here also!

More from Tim Congdon on Pan-European parties

Political parties at European level [meaning: pan-European parties] are funded from the general budget of the European Union. This budget may not be used for the funding of other political parties and in particular national political parties.” Repeat: the EU budget for pan-European political parties “may not be used for the funding of national political parties”. I quote from the official website of the EU (http://europa.eu/). My quotation is the official and definitive statement on the subject.

The UK Independence Party is undoubtedly a national political party. Indeed, its purpose is to restore in full the independence of the United Kingdom. As every member of UKIP deplores, this independence has been largely stolen from our country by a corrupt political elite collaborating with the EU’s bureaucracy. If UKIP is not a national political party as the EU understands that concept, I will eat my hat. So the EU’s budget for pan-European political parties is not to be used by national political parties, while UKIP is a national political party. It follows – logically, inescapably – that none of the EU’s money for pan-European political parties can be used by UKIP in the United Kingdom for UKIP’s own ends.

At this point you might say, “Full stop, end of story. There is nothing more to say. Let’s move on to the vital, important work that UKIP must do to take Britain out of the EU.” And I would agree with you 100%. Nevertheless, the team pushing for UKIP’s association with a pan-European political party claim on their website that an extra £400,000 a year would come to “our party”. This claim – which is their only argument – is false. No money would become available to “us” in UKIP for the purposes of “our party”. Do not believe the “yes to PEPPs” side if that is what they say.

How much money has been approved for all expenditure on PEPPs?

The 2011 EU Budget has a section on the European Parliament's expenditure and within that there is an allocation for 'political parties at the European level' (i.e., PEPPs)
The figures are, 17.4m. euros for the PEPPs as such, and 11.4m. euros for the Foundations.

This 28.8m. euros is divided up, according to a key in EP regulations.

But surely, you might protest, the “yes” side cannot be indulging in total fantasy. I have over the last few days carried out some homework on various EU and European Parliament websites, and am confident that I know how the “yes” team have derived their numbers.

The full story is quite complicated. You need an Excel file (which is available from me at timcongdon@btinternet.com and is also attached with this e-mail) to appreciate the detail of the calculations, but I can give the main points here. Remember that any sums arising from UKIP’s association with a pan-European political party come out of the EU Budget. That is why their expenditure is subject to European Parliament rules.

The promotion of pan-European political parties is seen by Eurocrats as part of the larger process of European integration. Indeed, so keen are the Eurocrats to expand pan-European political activity that they are hugely increasing the amounts spent. In 2009 the EU’s expenditure in this area was just under 17 million euros, whereas in 2011 the budget allocation has leapt to 28.8 million euros. The cynical and wasteful increase of almost 70 per cent in a mere two years is an insult to our taxpayers. It has occurred while our own government has had sharply to cut expenditure.

How does the key work?

EU regulations say 'The available budget for the political parties is distributed annually as follows: 15% is distributed in equal shares among the parties which have obtained a positive decision and 85% is distributed in proportion to the number of elected members.'

Box shows sums available and basis of apportionment.

Based on no. of PEPPs
Based on no. of MEPs

Total PEPPs, m. of euros 2.61 14.79 17.4
Foundations, m. euros 1.71 9.69 11.4

So, for example, of the 11.4m. Euros for the Foundations (i.e., think tanks), 1.71m. Is distributed according to the number of PEPPs which have 'obtained a positive decision' (meaning they have complied with EU criteria which a PEPP must meet). If there were 15 PEPPs, each Foundation associated with a PEPP would receive (1.7m. divided by 15) euros, or 113,300 euros out of this particular box.

The 28.8 million euros has two destinations. First, in Germany think-tanks or “foundations” affiliated to political parties have long been subsidized by the state. 11.4 million euros out of the 28.4 million is to finance the establishment of such “foundations” at the pan-European level. I estimate that the grant to the UKIP-related foundation due to our MEPs’ adhesion to the pan-European party would be about £170,000.

Secondly, the balance of 17.4 million euros is to be added to MEPs allowances. I believe – and I am sure most members of UKIP also believe – that MEPs’ allowances are too high already. At any rate, any MEP who joins a pan-European political party would see his or her allowances topped up by over £20,000. Let me underline once again that the resulting expenditure would be for the purposes of the pan-European party as regulated by the European Parliament, not for UKIP in the United Kingdom.

What would 'the European Alliance' receive by becoming a PEPP?

I am assuming that UKIP has 11 MEPs and that it belongs to 'the European Alliance', which has met the EU's criteria for being 'a political party at the European level'. I am also assuming that the European Alliance has 32 MEPs as members.
The following box shows how much the European Alliance would receive.

Receipts from being one of 11 Europarties Receipts from having 32 out of 736 MEPs i.e., 1/11 of amounts in box above (2.61, 1.71) i.e., 32/736 of amounts in box above (14.79, 9.69)
PEPP's money, euros 237,000 643,000

Money for a Foundation, in euros 155,000 421,000

So the total amount for the European Alliance (i.e., for its MEPs and its Foundation) would be about 1.45m. euros, which - at the present exchange rate - is roughly £1.3m. This is why the 'yes' side say that - by joining a PEPP - UKIP would stop 'our enemies' receiving £1.3m.

So the figure of “£400,000 for us in UKIP” on the “yes” website is explained, more or less. If all MEPs join “the European Alliance” or whatever, a new think-tank – perhaps located in Brussels – would be given a grant of about £170,000 and MEPs would receive altogether another £230,000 or so in extra expenses allowances. Do you approve of these uses of money in the name of the political party to which you belong? Is the 28.8 million euros budget to be seen as an excellent use of resources or the squandering of taxpayers’ money by a loathsome Euro- elite?

UKIP’s (or – in fact – UKIP’s MEPs’) acceptance of this sort of bribe from our enemies would be a shocking and deplorable betrayal. The “yes” side may say that the Conservatives, Labour and the LibDems have already participated in “political parties at the European level” and taken the money. They might ask, “why should UKIP be any different?”. The answer – I would hope – is that the UK Independence Party stands for principle and conviction, and is therefore opposed to politicians’ boondoggles. Politicians in the Conservative, Labour and LibDem parties are tacky and selfish, and we shouldn’t and won’t copy them. Let Conservative, Labour and LibDem MEPs join the other pigs at the trough. UKIP must not take money from a set of institutions that we detest.

Let me reiterate that no extra money would be directed to UKIP headquarters, any of UKIP’s branches or UKIP regional accounts. MEPs would indeed have (yet more) on their allowances, but could spend it only for purposes approved by the European Parliament. And do I need to say that the European Parliament’s officials loathe what UKIP stands for?

Vote No to the pan-European party idea in the forthcoming ballot.

Professor Tim Congdon CBE
12th July, 2011

Receipts for UKIP's MEPs as members of a PEPP

The PEPP's MEPs would receive 880,000 euros (237,000 + 643,000), to be spent on
for purposes regulated by the European Parliament.

The Foundation would receive 576,000 euros (155,000 + 421,000).

UKIP's MEPs would receive 11/32 of the 880,000 euros, which is 303,000 euros.

The Foundation would receive - as a result of the 11 UKIP MEPs' membership of the PEPP - a sum equal to 11/32 of 576,000 euros, or 198,000 euros.

The total sum received by the MEPs for PEPP activities and by the Foundation as a result of UKIP's participation in the PEPP would be 501,000 euros, which - at an exchange rate of 1.15 - is £436,000. 
 

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

• #0574* - Gerard BATTEN's Views on Joining A PEPP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0573* - Birmingham UKIP PEPP YES/NO DEBATE (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• IS THIS PEPP STILL LEGITIMATE? 11-Jul-2011 (efd-eu.blogspot.com)
• IS THIS PEPP STILL LEGITIMATE? 11-Jul-2011 (eualliance.blogspot.com)
• #0586* - Stuart AGNEW NFU MEP Tries To Justify His Dishonesty (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• APRIL - Tim CONGDON - 'No' to a Pan-European Party (tcongdon.blogspot.com)
• #0529* - UKIP PEPP Debate Was Insultingly Amateur & Crassly Illinformed! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0577* - Prostituting UKIP for a Printer!! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0414* - UKIP MAY FIND ITSELF DISADVANTAGED by PEPPs (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0534* - BAROSSO Admits PEPPs Are An EU AIM (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0580* - MORE EU CORRUPTION & UKIP Members Betrayed (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)

Stuart AGNEW NFU MEP Tries To Justify His Dishonesty

Stuart AGNEW NFU MEP Tries To Justify His Dishonesty

 Hi,

it really is astonishing, well I guess not in that Stuart Agnew NFU MEP has been shown and proven to have been involved in breech of electoral law, money laundering in cahoots with the ridiculously incompetent and duplicitous fool Malcolm Lord Pearson and also embroiled in conspiring to involve an innocent party in a criminal act by deception and then also involved, together with David Bannerman the liar and fraud MEP who has now betrayed both UKIP & The Tories, they were shown to be involved together defrauding the tax payers a case which I believe is still under investigation by OLAF and which will eventually be passed on to The British Police to prosecute.


The sums involved would seem to be about the same as those obtained by Tom Wise which you may recall he obtained as a result of signature by Lindsay Jenkins and from which Nigel Farage derived direct benefit in paying a personal bill of around £5,000.


You may recall Tom Wise went to prison for much the same crime and much the same amount!


Astonishingly the odious and clearly dishonest Stuart Agnew having obviously little understanding of ethics or morality would seem to have almost no understanding of democracy or decency either!


This particularly concerned one member of UKIP who took the trouble to clarify the details of Stuart Agnew's that he would betray the principles of democracy and ignore the democratic will of the party.


Just who does this arrogant fool think he is? Little wonder it is he and Mick McGough who are so clearly lieing through their teath to try to dupe UKIP's more gullible members into assisting The EU by supporting PEPP membership to 'give a clearer EUropean identity to Political Parties'.


I include Stuart Agnews quite astonishing response - even showing that although the selection of UKIP MEP candidates in his EU region was undeniably and utterly corrupt with liars like Mick McGough, David Bannerman and their ilk corrupting the process as shown CLICK HERE it was clearly with the collusion of low lifes like Stuart Agnew, Andrew Smith, Stuart Gulleford, Peter Reeve, Paul Nuttall, George Curtis etc.

Mr Agnew has stated on video that he would join a PEPP irrespective of the outcome of the ballot.

As this statement directly refutes the result of the democratic ballot to be held on the subject if that ballot decides NO, I wrote to Mr Agnew asking for clarification of his position .

His reply does indicate that he will abide by the democratic result and hence I withdraw my criticisms and apologise for possibly misleading members with  statements that are not true. I will delete any such references

Below is the reply Mr Agnew addressed to me:

Dear REDACTED

Thank you for your email dated 9th July 2011.

At the beginning of the campaign we were informed that the result would not be binding. I was therefore free, at that stage, to do what I felt would have been in the best interests of the Party, in my own opinion.

This might even have meant defying the wishes of  my own Regional Committee, and really going it alone. In such a circumstance, I would have to be very confident that I could deliver a result. The result would need to be a significant proportion of the 36,000 euros (net) per year that I would have access to being applied to the tangible benefit of the Eastern Counties.

Had I failed to achieve this, I could have rightfully expected de-selection by the Party as an MEP candidate next time around. Had I succeeded, I would still have needed to justify my conduct to the Eastern members and they would have had to make the decision of acknowledging that I had proved my point and re-instating me. Or insisting that my conduct was reprehensible, irrespective of any achievement, and punishing me accordingly.

My motivation for sticking my head on the block in this way is that in the last two European Parliament elections I have been the largest single financial donor to the Eastern Counties election funds. I will be expected to put in another big effort next time and I would quite naturally want to use all tools at my disposal. In my view turning £10 into £100 is a good move.

However, all of this is now theoretical as the NEC have ruled that the result will be binding.

I would like you to  know that I respect and adhere to NEC decisions, even if I do not necessarily agree with them.

You should also know that in 2008, all MEP candidates signed up to a list of principles/commitments/codes of conduct.

Of the 13 MEPs elected, I think that there are now only three of us who are adhering to all of these points, and their subsequent redefinitions, to the letter. I will not name names of course, but those who chose to lecture me about principles have not observed the principles they themselves signed up to.

I do hope that this makes my position clearer.  Please do not hesitate to contact me should you require any further information.

Yours sincerely,

Stuart Agnew  MEP
UK Independence Party
145 New London Road
Chelmsford
Essex
CM2 0QT

Tel: 01245 266466
Fax: 01245 252071

Email: eastern@ukip.org 

www.stuartagnewmep.co.uk
www.ukip.org

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 

.

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

• 18-Jun-2011 - SEEMS ONLY LIES & LIARS SUPPORT PEPPs (mike-mcgough.blogspot.com)
• #0529* - UKIP PEPP Debate Was Insultingly Amateur & Crassly Illinformed! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0559* - SEEMS ONLY LIES & LIARS SUPPORT PEPPs (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0438* - APRIL - 2 VERY SOUND REASONS to Vote NO to PEPP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0408* - UKIP Seems Willing To Prostitute Principles For MORE Tax Payers' Money! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0573* - Birmingham UKIP PEPP YES/NO DEBATE (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0379* - Should Corrupt Politicians Go To Prison? (tomwisemep.blogspot.com)
• #0511* - UKIP Starts Another Slush Fund (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• 21-May-2011 - John ISON IS CLEARLY NO FRIEND of Steve MORSON's!! (john-ison.blogspot.com)

The Case For NO - VIDEO - Trevor COLMAN MEP 06-Jul-2011

The Case For NO - VIDEO - Trevor COLMAN MEP 06-Jul-2011

Hi,

although almost all the comments made by Trevor Colman to support his very sound arguments against aiding The EU by progressing their project as members of Pan EU Political Parties thus demeaning Patriotic National politics can be sourced on this blog - I have asked for the accurate URLs of the documents he quotes to ensure his accuracy - as we are well aware that Mick McGough and other proven dishonest individuals have lied, as is their track record, to try to con the membership of UKIP.

The Yes Campaign was ordered withdrawn due to its clear dishonesty and misrepresentation, by The Returning Officer Steve Allison. Sections that were lies by Mick McGough and others were altered!

I trust the NO Campaign will supply URLs rapidly and they will be placed on this blog.



.

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)
• #0380* - Further Thoughts on Scoundrels In Politics re: Tom WISE & UKIP (tomwisemep.blogspot.com)
• 13-Jun-2011 - UKIP's Grubby Little Criminal Tom WISE MEP (rt. to PRISON!) (tomwisemep.blogspot.com)
• #0541* - Whilst UKIP Squabble Like Ferrets In A Sack... SINCLAIRE Ploughs On (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #G0588* - PASTAFFARRI PROOF of Globule Warming (gl-w.blogspot.com)

Barbara BOOKER Explains further dangers of a YES to PEPP Vote

Barbara BOOKER Explains further dangers of a YES to PEPP Vote

Originally Posted by Long Term Supporter & member of UKIP
Rob McWhirter past branch chairman & web master currently domicile in Switzerland.

If you watch the S/W hustings video, available on ukip.org or no2pepp.com, Stuart clearly says that in the event of a NO vote, and if he sees a possible benefit for UKIP, he will ask his regional committee for permission to do a Godfrey, and taking a chance on not being reselected by the membership in 1.5 years time, as the vote is "not binding".

UKIP Regional Committees have no authority to regulate the activities of MEPs. Whereas it might be considered courteous for Stuart Agnew to inform his RC if he decides to join a PEPP, it would be inappropriate for him to seek permission which the RC is not empowered to grant or withhold.

In a detailed response Long Term UKIP watcher & critic Barbara Booker says:

The NEC's dithering over the ballot question casts into doubt whether anything useful can be achieved by holding a ballot at all. Both FOR and AGAINST co-ordinators are clearly under the impression that the issue is whether UKIP, the party as a whole, should join a PEPP, but as Gerard Batten rightly points out, "The 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".

Suppose, for the sake of argument, that Nigel Farage wanted to take UKIP into the federalist European People's Party, or some other highly unsuitable PEPP. Would the FOR side be happy to go along with that? Perhaps they assume Nigel would never enter into an alliance which conflicts with UKIP principles, forgetting that for years he's been taking a principled stand against PEPPs altogether. As he said in UKIP's press release of 28.1.04 when he and other UKIP MEPs joined in legal action to try and stop the EU funding of PEPPs, "It requires the recipients of European funding to subscribe to pre-set political ideals, such as agreement with greater European integration".

Again, his speech in an EP debate on 8.3.04 is worth reading in full (see Debates - Monday, 8 March 2004 - Statute and financing of political parties at European level (amendments to the Rules of Procedure)), but note particularly: "I have some difficulty with the issue of the rule of law . . . . 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".

If Nigel can now betray his own principles by swallowing both the rule of law and the political ideal of greater European integration in order to get at the funding he was once so happy not to qualify for, then why should he hesitate to betray UKIP's principles regarding a suitable PEPP for the party to join? The problem with a ballot question such as, "Should UKIP join a Pan-European Political Party?" is that a Yes vote would give the go-ahead for a leap into the political unknown, with no safeguards or control retained by UKIP's membership or NEC.

Some have claimed that the ballot question will not now involve the whole party, but only the MEPs, such as in: "Should UKIP MEPs be allowed to join a European Political Party and a European Political Foundation as defined under Regulation EC 2004/2003?".

Such a question opens up a whole minefield of potential problems. If this debate is a conflict between the principles of the AGAINST side and the pragmatism of the FOR side, and principles win, are those principles not going to apply re UKIP MPs, MSPs, Welsh Assembly and London Assembly Members? All these would help a PEPP fulfil the EU criteria as set out in Article 3 of the Regulation: "A political party at European level shall satisfy the following conditions: (b) it must be represented, in at least one quarter of Member States, by Members of the European Parliament or in the national Parliaments or regional Parliaments or in the regional assemblies". So why ballot members only about MEPs joining a PEPP?

Including "be allowed to" in the proposal introduces an element of choice. If MEPs are to be 'allowed' to join a PEPP, it follows that they are also to be allowed not to join one, yet in the event of a Yes vote how and by whom would that choice be made? Would each MEP continue to be free, as now, to make his/her own decision? Because if so, the ballot will have been a waste of time and money. As individuals they are already allowed to join PEPPs because there is no rule preventing them from doing so. Godfrey Bloom has joined one, the other ten haven't, so amongst the present MEPs there has been no overwhelming enthusiasm demonstrated for joining a PEPP, but if members are strongly opposed to them doing so the only logical question for the ballot is, "should MEPs be 'prohibited' from joining a PEPP?".

If in future the MEPs are to be regarded as a cohesive whole instead of as separate individuals, and must exercise their choice of joining a PEPP or not by majority vote amongst themselves, or even worse by decree of their leader, it will result in strife on a scale that will make the Nikki Sinclaire episode appear insignificant. People feel strongly about this issue or there wouldn't be a consultation taking place at all, and the danger is that a Yes vote to 'allowing' MEPs to join a PEPP will become interpreted by enthusiasts as an obligation to do so. A proposal open to various interpretations will cause endless trouble if passed by a membership unaware of its potential divisiveness.

Should the words 'be allowed to' be omitted and the question put to members as, 'Should UKIP MEPs join a European Political Party?', a Yes vote would make it mandatory for them to do so. Candidates such as Trevor Colman and Gerard Batten who are opposed to PEPPs on principle, or to certain PEPPs because of their political platform, would be ruled out of standing in the Euro-elections. All candidates would have to agree in advance to joining a PEPP which might at that time not even exist. It's not difficult to set up a PEPP according to EU rules. Just seven people can do it, providing each comes from a different member state and all are elected representatives at regional assembly level or above. It's quite difficult though for such a small PEPP to survive, and there is no guarantee that Bloom's EAF, or any other PEPP that UKIP MEPs might help form, will last even up to the next Euro-elections, let alone beyond them. Yet a Yes vote would mean candidates starting next year on the selection process for 2014 having to agree to join some possibly as-yet-unthought-of PEPP with a who-knows-what political platform.

Note also that the only European manifesto commitment UKIP could make would be that its MEPs will join a PEPP. They could not promise to fight for EU withdrawal because they couldn't be sure that would form part of the PEPP's political programme. Stuart Agnew appears to think that having several MEPs would make UKIP one of the "big beasts" in any PEPP they joined, giving them "a major part in drawing up the party's political programme". This is to misunderstand how PEPPs work. Having a clutch of MEPs would certainly make UKIP a welcome member of a PEPP because they would attract a larger EU grant, but it would not necessarily give them greater influence in drawing up the political programme. Stuart Agnew should read the statute of the European Alliance for Freedom which Godfrey Bloom has joined. The supreme governing body of the EAF is the Congress, which determines the political programme. Member organisations are represented on the Congress, each delegation having one vote, and decisions are taken by simple majority of votes cast. What counts, therefore, is not your delegation having lots of MEPs, but having lots of allies who share your political aims among the other delegations. If UKIP is the only party within the PEPP whose aim is to withdraw from the EU, then EU withdrawal isn't going to feature in the political programme!

What actual benefit to voters would there be in supporting candidates of a party which isn't able to make its own manifesto commitments, and whose political activities would be dictated by colleagues whose aim and intention is to remain in the EU?

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

• #0576* - PEPP Campaigner for UKIP Members Mike SMITH (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0574* - Gerard BATTEN's Views on Joining A PEPP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0577* - Prostituting UKIP for a Printer!! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0578* - Mick McGOUGH Drags UKIP Name In The gutter AGAIN (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0534* - BAROSSO Admits PEPPs Are An EU AIM (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0559* - SEEMS ONLY LIES & LIARS SUPPORT PEPPs (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0529* - UKIP PEPP Debate Was Insultingly Amateur & Crassly Illinformed! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0572* - Noted That Lies of Mick McGough are Officially Edited (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• 18-Jun-2011 - SEEMS ONLY LIES & LIARS SUPPORT PEPPs (mike-mcgough.blogspot.com)

ALDE Group Shows UKIP pro PEPP Betray Britain

ALDE Group Shows UKIP pro PEPP Betray Britain

Hi,

there are those in UKIP who would sell out their grandmother for far less than 30 pieces of silver!

The barbarity of EU PEPPs can be shown relatively well with a brief look at the pond life gathered in The ALDE Group - probably joined together so that hey could buy a printer with EU cash used to bribe them as UKIP's pro PEPP campaigners - liars and cheats like Mick McGough, Stuart Agnew and their ilk would have you believe is a benefit!

This may give you pause for thought as although there may be some filth like Graham Watson who would endorse this one would hope few other British MEPs would:

The 85 strong Anti British EU ALDE Group include 14 British + Irish MEPs 

Including members of The British Government Coallition Parties!

Here is the slime leading them - a duplicitous and oleagenous little runt from that runt of countries Belgium, which harbours such discord (and of course institutionalised paedophelia) that it can not even form a government - no wonder its failures congregate in The EU having destroyed their own little Country they now seek damage on a larger stage:

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

VERHOFSTADT Guy

Belgium

Offices:

BRU: PHS 55C011 Fax:49566

+32 (0)2 28 49566

Tel:45566

+32 (0)2 28 45566

STR: LOW T06028 Fax:79566

+32 (0)2 28 49566

Tel:75566

+33 (0)3 88 1 75566

guy.verhofstadt@europarl.europa.eu

http://youtu.be/VpSl2C8DSbA

For the Full

THE LIST OF SHAME:

http://www.alde.eu/alde-group/alde-meps-list-member-european-parliament/

AYLWARD Liam

Ireland

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G309 Fax:49782

+32 (0)2 28 49782

Tel:45782

+32 (0)2 28 45782

STR: WIC M02035 Fax:79782

+32 (0)2 28 49782

Tel:75782

+33 (0)3 88 1 75782

liam.aylward@europarl.europa.eu

BEARDER Catherine

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G218 Fax:49632

+32 (0)2 28 49632

Tel:45632

+32 (0)2 28 45632

STR: WIC M02006 Fax:79632

+32 (0)2 28 49632

Tel:75632

+33 (0)3 88 1 75632

catherine.bearder@europarl.europa.eu

BOWLES Sharon

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G201 Fax:49221

+32 (0)2 28 49221

Tel:45221

+32 (0)2 28 45221

STR: WIC M02029 Fax:79221

+32 (0)2 28 49221

Tel:75221

+33 (0)3 88 1 75221

sharon.bowles@europarl.europa.eu

CROWLEY Brian

Ireland

Offices:

BRU: ASP 04F365 Fax:49751

+32 (0)2 28 49751

Tel:45751

+32 (0)2 28 45751

STR: LOW T06038 Fax:79751

+32 (0)2 28 49751

Tel:75751

+33 (0)3 88 1 75751

brian.crowley@europarl.europa.eu

D

DAVIES Chris

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G169 Fax:49353

+32 (0)2 28 49353

Tel:45353

+32 (0)2 28 45353

STR: WIC M02005 Fax:79353

+32 (0)2 28 49353

Tel:75353

+33 (0)3 88 1 75353

chris@chrisdaviesmep.org.uk

DUFF Andrew

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G346 Fax:49998

+32 (0)2 28 49998

Tel:45998

+32 (0)2 28 45998

STR: WIC M02010 Fax:79998

+32 (0)2 28 49998

Tel:75998

+33 (0)3 88 1 75998

andrew.duff@europarl.europa.eu

GALLAGHER Pat the Cope

Ireland

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G305 Fax:49591

+32 (0)2 28 49591

Tel:45591

+32 (0)2 28 45591

STR: WIC M02036 Fax:79591

+32 (0)2 28 49591

Tel:75591

+33 (0)3 88 1 75591

patthecope.gallagher@europarl.europa.eu

HALL Fiona

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G246 Fax:49561

+32 (0)2 28 49561

Tel:45561

+32 (0)2 28 45561

STR: WIC M02004 Fax:79561

+32 (0)2 28 49561

Tel:75561

+33 (0)3 88 1 75561

fiona.hall@europarl.europa.eu

HARKIN Marian

Ireland

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G253 Fax:49797

+32 (0)2 28 49797

Tel:45797

+32 (0)2 28 45797

STR: WIC M02068 Fax:79797

+32 (0)2 28 49797

Tel:75797

+33 (0)3 88 1 75797

marian.harkin@europarl.europa.eu

LUDFORD Sarah

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G165 Fax:49104

+32 (0)2 28 49104

Tel:45104

+32 (0)2 28 45104

STR: WIC M02009 Fax:79104

+32 (0)2 28 49104

Tel:75104

+33 (0)3 88 1 75104

sarah.ludford@europarl.europa.eu

LYNNE Elizabeth

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G258 Fax:49521

+32 (0)2 28 49521

Tel:45521

+32 (0)2 28 45521

STR: WIC M02003 Fax:79521

+32 (0)2 28 49521

Tel:75521

+33 (0)3 88 1 75521

elizabeth.lynne@europarl.europa.eu

LYON George

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G210 Fax:49628

+32 (0)2 28 49628

Tel:45628

+32 (0)2 28 45628

STR: WIC M02008 Fax:79628

+32 (0)2 28 49628

Tel:75628

+33 (0)3 88 1 75628

george.lyon@europarl.europa.eu

McMILLAN-SCOTT Edward

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 13G130 Fax:49959

+32 (0)2 28 49959

Tel:45959

+32 (0)2 28 45959

STR: LOW T12027 Fax:79959

+32 (0)2 28 49959

Tel:75959

+33 (0)3 88 1 75959

edward.mcmillan-scott@europarl.europa.eu

WALLIS Diana

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 10G102 Fax:49201

+32 (0)2 28 49201

Tel:45201

+32 (0)2 28 45201

STR: LOW T12047 Fax:79201

+32 (0)2 28 49201

Tel:75201

+33 (0)3 88 1 75201

diana.wallis@europarl.europa.eu

WATSON Graham

United Kingdom

Offices:

BRU: ASP 09G205 Fax:49626

+32 (0)2 28 49626

Tel:45626

+32 (0)2 28 45626

STR: WIC M02106 Fax:79626

+32 (0)2 28 49626

Tel:75626

+33 (0)3 88 1 75626

graham.watson@europarl.europa.eu

Why are we funding this anti British Greek Jerk?

SKYLAKAKIS Theodoros

Greece

Offices:

BRU: ASP 08E218 Fax:49284

+32 (0)2 28 49284

Tel:45284

+32 (0)2 28 45284

STR: LOW T09041 Fax:79284

+32 (0)2 28 49284

Tel:75284

+33 (0)3 88 1 75284

theodoros.skylakakis@europarl.europa.eu

Clearly these are part of the scum that form OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

Clearly betraying these United Kingdoms

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

• #0577* - Prostituting UKIP for a Printer!! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0576* - PEPP Campaigner for UKIP Members Mike SMITH (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0578* - Mick McGOUGH Drags UKIP Name In The gutter AGAIN (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0573* - Birmingham UKIP PEPP YES/NO DEBATE (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0574* - Gerard BATTEN's Views on Joining A PEPP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0572* - Noted That Lies of Mick McGough are Officially Edited (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0529* - UKIP PEPP Debate Was Insultingly Amateur & Crassly Illinformed! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0531* - PEPPs Offer UKIP No Gain for THINK TANKS (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0534* - BAROSSO Admits PEPPs Are An EU AIM (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #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)