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.

Sunday 3 July 2011

Barbara BOOKER Explains further dangers of a YES to PEPP Vote

Barbara BOOKER Explains further dangers of a YES to PEPP Vote

Follow Greg_LW on Twitter

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 
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. 
Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Related articles
Enhanced by Zemanta
Posted by at
Labels: , , ,

No comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to: Post Comments (Atom)