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)

02-Jun-2011 - Barbara BOOKER - A SUMMARY & OPINION

 02-Jun-2011 - Barbara BOOKER - A SUMMARY & OPINION

On another thread (REDACTED) enthuses about what he describes as the absolutely exemplary, open and democratic manner in which debate is being conducted in UKIP about joining a pan-EU party. Despite being opposed to the idea himself, he suggests Nigel Farage deserves congratulation for such a democratic decision-making process.

You are too easily delighted! How many party members do you imagine will attend a regional meeting, or the Conference, or register on the website forum, to hear and discuss the arguments? 2000? About an eighth of the membership! Double that? Still only a quarter!

The majority will cast their vote solely on the basis of the FOR and AGAINST statements from the two co-ordinators, plus Steve Allison's explanatory statement, published in Independence Magazine. Note that the process does not allow the co-ordinators any opportunity in Independence to correct false claims made by the other side, or to deal with points raised at the meetings, or to sum up and make closing statements.

Nor does it provide any input from the NEC on the constitutional implications for UKIP of joining a Europarty. It's like asking a jury of laymen to reach a verdict on a complicated legal case without hearing any cross-examination, or any guidance or intervention from a judge, yet the result of the pan-EU party vote will enable the victorious side to claim democratic legitimacy however inadequate or misleading the information on which it was based.

Let's look at some of that information.


1) In his explanatory statement party vice-chairman Steve Allison wrote: "Each ballot paper will pose the question (subject to confirmation by the NEC): ‘Should the UK Independence Party’s MEPs be allowed to join a European Political Party and a European Political Foundation as defined under Regulation EC 2004/2003?’"

This is extremely misleading. The issue is not about granting permission for MEPs to join a Europarty. Although it is a small group of MEPs leading and pushing for the change, the decision is about whether UKIP itself should join an alliance which would make all UKIP members also members of the Europarty.


2) From reading the FOR and AGAINST statements members might easily think this is some academic debate about the desirability of belonging to pan-EU parties in general, instead of, as is actually the case, a question of deciding whether to join a specific Europarty. Neither side gives details, or even the name, of that party, and indeed the FOR side gives the clear impression that it is yet to be set up. It talks about UKIP "creating a new political party in the Parliament" and "creating a professional Think Tank", and states, "Presently 10 parties take money from that (EU funding) pot. If we become number 11, then the other ten parties lose".

This is not true. There are, as can be seen at Political parties at European level, currently eleven Europarties and eleven Foundations (think tanks) receiving EU funding grants. The decision for members is not whether UKIP should create a new Europarty and think tank, but whether it should join the already existing European Alliance for Freedom (EAF), whose think tank is the already existing European Foundation for Freedom (see Sharon Ellul Bonici's email 26.10.2010 at The Pan EU Alliance for Freedom: Sharon Ellul BONICI Announces UKIP's Inclusion - Members @ 26-Oct-2010).

Both organisations are registered at 27 Grognet Street, Mosta MST3613, Malta, and have websites at European Alliance for Freedom and www.eurfreedom.org respectively. UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom has joined and is a Board Member of the EAF. The maximum grant awarded to the European Alliance for Freedom for 2011 is 372,753 euros (the final figure may be less), and to the European Foundation for Freedom 244,217 euros.

Why has the FOR side not given members the correct facts?


3) To obtain the EU grants stated above, the EAF would have to have submitted with its application last November its political programme setting out its objectives, and its statute (party constitution) defining the bodies responsible for its political and financial management.

Why has the FOR side not made these important documents available to UKIP members to study? There can be no meaningful debate about joining a pan-EU party unless members understand what they would be agreeing to if they vote Yes.


4) The FOR side says the Europarty it wants UKIP members to agree to join would be "based on the existing Europe of Freedom and Democracy Group". It talks about "our current, comfortable set of working relationships with our prospective allies".

According to the EAF, its members come from Austria, Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Sweden (none of which has MEPs in the existing EFD group), Lithuania and the UK (the only countries which do). Why is the FOR side misleading UKIP members over this?

The 'prospective allies' include:

Franz Obermayr MEP, Austria, FPO
Philip Claeys MEP, Belgium, Vlaams Belang
Torsten Gross (probably Germany, Citizens in Rage (BIW) party)
Kent Ekeroth MP, Sweden, Sweden Democrats

(included also, although not named by the EAF, are probably Frank Vanhecke MEP, Vlaams Belang; and Lithuanian MEPs Rolandas Paksas and Juozas Imbrasas)


5) The main plank of the FOR case is that joining a Europarty will bring into UKIP up to approximately £400,000 of EU funding every year, amounting to in excess of £1 million by the end of this parliamentary session in 2014. They state that gaining this money requires, "a small amount of matched funding: as little as 10% of the amount".

The first of those claims is a guesstimate figure, possibly based on a previous year's theoretical entitlement, but not necessarily relating to future funding. The second claim is incorrect.

The europarl website sets out the funding distribution system, consisting of two parts. 15% of the total amount available for Europarties (estimated as 17,075,000 euros for 2011) is divided equally between those that qualify, of which there are currently eleven including the European Alliance for Freedom. The rules require Europarties to have elected representatives in at least seven member states, but not necessarily MEPs, so there is no way of predicting how many new parties may be taking a share of this 15% in 2012, let alone in '13 and '14. The remaining 85% is divided between the parties in proportion to the number of MEPs they have, a number which as recent events in UKIP have shown, may not be constant.

Funding for the Foundations is distributed on the same scale as for the parties, although the total amount available is less (estimated as 11,140,000 euros for 2011).

Whilst acknowledging that UKIP would have to pay "a small amount of matched funding" in order to access its estimated £400,000 per year, the FOR side carefully avoids stating how much this would amount to. It also has the %age wrong.

The rules for Europarty/Foundation funding state, "the maximum possible rate of co-financing is 85% of the eligible expenses", therefore a minimum of 15% (not 10% as claimed) of its total expenditure will have to be provided by the EAF from its own resources.

Taking as an example the FOR side's estimated figure of £1,164,000 total annual grant to the EAF if UKIP joins, this means a minimum further £205,413 (approx) would have to be raised by the EAF from subscriptions, donations and contributions from member parties. As UKIP's estimated £400,000 share would be just over a third of the total grant, it presumably follows that up to a third of the shortfall, ie £68,470 might have to be contributed annually by UKIP.

However, that is a minimum figure. If, being one of the smaller parties, the EAF's estimated EU grant of £1,164,000 should be insufficient for it to finance its planned political programme, the rules allow for parties to contribute up to a maximum 40% of their total expenditure themselves, in which case the EAF would be allowed to provide a further £776,000 annually. In these circumstances UKIP's third share of the shortfall might amount to approximately £258,660 per year.

(Note: the above calculations are only an illustration of how the funding system works, and are based on the FOR side's own estimate of UKIP's share of the grant its Europarty might qualify for. No account has been taken of membership fees and other donations the Europarty might receive, which would form part of its 'own resources' and so reduce the sum required from UKIP. Note also that EU rules strictly prohibit Europarties and Foundations from accepting donations from the budgets of political groups in the European parliament).

Arising from the above, there are important points to consider. Any funds contributed at all by UKIP to a Europarty will be money diverted away from its campaigns to win seats at Westminster, on local councils, and on Scottish and Welsh assemblies. Once passed to a Europarty that money cannot, according to EU rules, be used to finance any national party or candidates. This is a different situation from at present when although there are restrictions on the use of MEPs' group funds, UKIP isn't having to pay for the privilege of its MEPs receiving them! As the body entrusted with the duty of ensuring that UKIP achieves its stated objectives, and responsible for the party's funds, what is the NEC's view on the possibility of thousands of pounds of members' subscriptions and donations passing out of its control to a Europarty? Does it consider this compatible with the pursuit of UKIP's principle aim of achieving withdrawal from the EU?

Also, can the NEC assure members that UKIP's share of EU grants paid to the Europarty and Think Tank, which the FOR side repeatedly says UKIP would benefit from, will be paid into UKIP's Head Office bank account and remain under the control of the party treasurer and NEC? Should this not be the case, where will the money go and who will control it?

As a member party of the EAF, what representation would UKIP have on its governing body and how would that person/people be selected? Would they have to be MEPs, or could UKIP members appoint whoever they wanted to look after their party's interests?


6) The FOR side says UKIP could use its grant to campaign on issues affected by EU legislation and gives the example, "we might use it to produce a flyer for the UK's young female voters on the effects of the recent European Court of Justice decision which will drive up their insurance premiums". Bearing in mind that the EU's rules are very strict in that grants "may only be used to meet expenditure directly linked to the objectives set out in the political programme", perhaps the FOR side could say which of the EAF's objectives, stated in its political programme, such a flyer would come under? See Statutes | European Alliance for Freedom

. . . to campaign for a non-centralised, transparent, flexible and democratically controlled EU towards the rejection of any development leading to a European superstate, given that there is no such thing as a ‘single European people’;
. . . to pursue true subsidiarity and self-rule ensuring that democracy is preserved on the basis of sovereign parliaments in Member States, over which the citizens exercise democratic control.
. . . to sustain diversity and accountable cooperation at a European level among free peoples able to regulate themselves in accordance with mutually agreed common standards;
. . . to uphold freedom of political expression and association across Europe and especially within the structures of the EU;
. . . to promote a political environment in which movements, political parties and other political organisations are given equal opportunities to voice their concerns and advance their political positions;
. . . to ensure that the peoples and nations of Europe are allowed to pursue their right to strengthen their own historical, traditional, religious and cultural values.
. . . to defend civil liberties and ensure that no characteristics of a totalitarian nature emerge in the continuing political development of the European Union, while identifying already existing anti-democratic legislation with an aim to revoke it;

It is the above objectives that expenditure of the grant must be directly linked to if UKIP joins the European Alliance for Freedom (slogan: 'The People's Voice in Europe'), not UKIP campaigns against EU treaties and judgements.

Does UKIP actually want to be the people's voice in Europe? Most members rather want to be out of Europe!


Reading the EU regulation on the allocation of Europarty and Foundation grants as described above in 5), it is difficult to see why UKIP is having this debate about joining a pan-EU party at all. The European Alliance for Freedom has managed to meet the requirements for setting up a new Europarty and Foundation without UKIP's participation, and Godfrey Bloom's involvement is proof that there is no bar to UKIP members joining as individuals. Whilst it is understood that the AGAINST side would be opposed on grounds of principle to having any representation in a pan-EU party at all, UKIP members are nevertheless free to make up their own minds. If those MEPs in favour were to follow Godfrey Bloom's example and join as individuals, they would attract the Europarty and Foundation funding that the FOR side regards as so essential. All the benefits the FOR side claims would flow from UKIP's membership would in fact be available if just its MEPs joined. Ordinary party members who support the FOR side could also join as individuals if they wished.

The grants would be no higher, and the benefits no greater for having the whole of UKIP join, than they would if just the MEPs did so.

Why split the party with this issue unnecessarily?

Consolidated TEXT: 32003R2004
quote

Article 10

Distribution

1. Available appropriations shall be distributed annually as follows among the political parties at European level which have obtained a positive decision on their application for funding as referred to in Article 4:

(a) 15 % shall be distributed in equal shares;

(b) 85 % shall be distributed among those which have elected members in the European Parliament, in proportion to the number of elected members.

ends

.

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

17-Mar-2011 - EU RULE CHANGES for PEPPs In REFERENDUMS!

Rule change to allow euro-parties to campaign in domestic referendums

LEIGH PHILLIPS

17.03.2011 @ 18:01 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - 

MEPs have backed a change to rules governing euro-parties - the 'meta-political-parties' or umbrella organisations that bring together the various national political parties of more or less a similar ideological flavour - allowing them to spend money on domestic referendums.

Until now, the European Parliament has maintained a strict firewall between European campaign spending, delivering europarty money to candidates and domestic political parties to help individuals get elected to the chamber.

Since 2008, europarties, including the centre-right European People's Party, the centre-left Party of European Socialists and the middle-ground European Liberal Democrat and Reform Party, have been able to use some of their funding to finance "campaigns conducted ... in the context of the elections to the European Parliament," according to funding regulations.

However, europarties have been prohibited from using these sums to finance referendum campaigns, due, according to an explanation found in an early draft of the rule-changes, to "a concern that European parties and foundations could interfere in the domestic affairs of member states."

But under a report overhauling the rules governing europarties, backed this week by the chamber's Constitutional Affairs committee, this prohibition is to be lifted in cases where domestic referendums have "a direct link" with EU subjects.

The document reads: "If European political parties are to play a political role at EU level, they should have the right to participate in such campaigns as long as the subject of the referendum has a direct link with issues concerning the European Union."

The rule change is not an abstract point. Three days ago in the UK, a cross-party group of politicians, including former MEP and now domestic Green Party leader Caroline Lucas, Labour's ex-Europe-minister Keith Vaz and Conservative MP Zac Goldsmith, launched a campaign for a referendum on the country's membership of the EU.

Calling itself "The People's Pledge", the campaign is asking voters to sign a pledge that they will only support candidates at the next general election who back a binding popular referendum on whether the UK should stay in the EU or leave.

Caroline Lucas, now an MP for Brighton Pavilion, told EUobserver: "We think there are benefits to being part of the EU – for example, the chance to develop effective laws on protecting the environment, workers' rights and fundamental human rights. But we also think the EU shouldn't exercise too much control over things like our economy or our justice system ... I support an EU referendum not because I'm anti-EU – I'm not – but because I'm pro democracy."

Nigel Farage, the leader of Britain's conservative eurosceptic party, Ukip, accused those behind the rule change of wanting the EU to be able to funnel public subsidies to the Yes side in any future referendum.

"It is an outrage that people in Britain will be funding pro-EU propaganda when we finally get the referendum so many are demanding," he said of the move.

"This is a direct attempt to find extra taxpayer funding for the Yes side in any forthcoming EU referendum in the UK. They are as aware of the likelihood of an in out referendum in the UK sooner or later and have every intention of loading the dice with taxpayer's money."

Transnational constituencies in the parliament

The rulebook overhaul would also see the creation of individual memberships of the europarties. Currently only national parties can be members.

The other major change MEPs are pushing would see the creation of a new, pan-European 'transnational constituency' within the European Parliament.

The idea is that europarties would campaign across Europe for constituency, which would contain 25 seats, rather than just domestically. It is an initial effort to give a pan-European identity to the elections, which in many cases are viewed as little more than 27 simultaneous national elections.

The report, which aims to set out the parliament's thinking on the rules ahead of an upcoming regulation change being prepared by the European Commission, must also be adopted by the full sitting of the chamber.

It is understood that on the question of the creation of a transnational constituency, Germany, Italy and the Hungary as current chair of the EU's rotating presidency, are particularly enthusiastic, as is EU Council President Herman van Rompuy.

The rule changes also cover the foundations, or think-tanks, associated with the europarties. Each party has its own think-tank, but these are limited to working within EU member states. 

Under the new proposed rules, the think-tanks could work in non-EU states, notably in Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, candidate countries such as Croatia and Turkey, and even the post-Soviet space and north Africa.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Related articles

• Now MEPs can use taxpayers' money for propaganda to keep Britain in the EU (dailymail.co.uk)
• Daily Express: PLOT TO 'RIG' YOUR EU VOTE #eureferendum (dreadnoughtuk.wordpress.com)
• Institutions of the European Union and the United States government (progressiverestoration.wordpress.com)
• The Treaty of Lisbon and democratic reform in the European Union (progressiverestoration.wordpress.com)