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.

Showing posts with label MEPs. Show all posts
Showing posts with label MEPs. Show all posts

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

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. 

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

To Spread The Facts World Wide

&
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 9 July 2011

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

To Spread The Facts World Wide

.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
Enhanced by Zemanta

Thursday, 9 June 2011

09-Jun-2011 - UKIP Watcher Barbara BOOKER Has ANOTHER VERY VALID POINT

09-Jun-2011 - UKIP Watcher Barbara BOOKER Has ANOTHER VERY VALID POINT 


Quote Originally Posted by Richard Allen a Branch chairman and long term member very supportive of the principles of UKIP rather than its corrupt practices and the MEPs who have clearly gone native said regarding PEPPs:
If a number of MEPs go in against the wishes of the membership then all bets are off. There would be a full scale split in the party and a number of MEPs would certainly not follow Farage and co into a PEP.
 
Barbara Booker a long term and well informed UKIP commentator makes the following observation:
 
Richard, you seem to have fallen into the common UKIP error of equating 'the party' with its MEPs. The question currently before members is simply whether UKIP as a whole should join a pan-EU party. Under the present constitution there's nothing to prevent Nigel Farage and others joining, even if the membership votes against the party going in. Members would have to get a constitutional amendment passed making membership of a PEP incompatible with UKIP membership if they wanted to stop MEPs joining, but until then I really don't think there's reasonable cause for complaint against anyone who decides to join as an individual. In the case of MEPs, of course, they could always be deselected at the next euros, though that's probably not likely to happen.

The real danger, I think, is in the fact that the vote is non-specific. Members are not being asked if they want UKIP to join a particular, named, PEP. They are being asked to grant blanket approval for going into just 'a' pan-European party. Once that approval is given, members will lose control over who with and what the party joins. The MEPs will be able to do whatever deals with whomever they want in Brussels, justified by the fact that the membership has agreed that UKIP should join 'a' PEP.

The NEC is guilty of a disgraceful dereliction of duty here. It should have tasked Nigel Farage as leader of the MEPs with drawing up a proper proposal for joining a specific PEP; researched the background of that party, its members and political aims; drawn up amendments to UKIP's constitution stating how and by whom the party would be represented on the governing body of the PEP, what limit there would be to UKIP's financial liabilities, and what the procedure would be for taking a decision to leave. Only then, having properly thought through the implications and decided that it would be in UKIP's interest, should the NEC have put the proposal to the membership for consideration.
Barbara Booker isn't strictly correc t I don't think as the question is should UKIP MEPs join a Pan EU Party thus distancing themselves from The Party AND creating their own personna - you will note they have thus given no undertaking to be bound by this silly referndum - it is just a whitewash excercise to do as they wish and the irrelevan EUnochs on The NEC will not and can not do a thing about it - little wonder the NEC often, nowadays, can not even form a quorum!

We note Steve Allison's absence last Monday but as he pointed out UKIP styled decisions were released to the public regarding the apology to Nikki Sinclaire from the Party not only without consultation from the NEC nor even after they had been informed but prior to their meeting - what is the point in the NEC?

.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

Thursday, 17 March 2011

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

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

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


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