.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
16-Aug-2011 - 14:30hrs. Early reports indicate a NO Vote
16-Aug-2011 - 14:30hrs. Early reports indicate a NO Vote
UKIP: So will Nigel Farage flush his career down the Water Loo
JUNIUS has a critical look at UKIP through the eyes of several long-standing members
Tuesday, 16 August 2011
UKIP: So will Nigel Farage flush his career down the Water Loo?
UKIP NEC member voices their opinion on Farage's desire to turn UKIP into a Pan-European partyHow many UKIPPERS remember that the 15th August was Napoleon Bonaparte's birthday?
How ironic that the 15th of August was also the last chance for UKIPPERS to vote on the issue of UKIP MEPs joining a pan-European party! So will Farage face his Waterloo?
The votes are now being counted and we await the result with interest. UKIPPERS should consider the following facts:
The voting slips were unnumbered and were sent to a private address. Iffy!
Farage had already lost a previous conference debate on pan-European parties. Remember his reaction?
'they have just lost me 1 million Euros over this'. See: LINK
Certain MEPs have already made it clear that they will ignore a 'No Vote' and seek permission from their regional committee to join a PEP. Stuart Agnew is one.
Godfrey Bloom is already on the board of a PEP. See: LINK
Gerard Batten has already backtracked on the issue of PEPs. He now says that he will consider joining one IF there is a 'get out' clause!
A very large number of UKIP activists have said they will resign from the party if the 'Yes' campaign wins. We shall see!
So what if the 'Yes' campaign succeeds?
UKIP becomes pan-European and embraces federalism. Farage and his sycophants buy lifetime tickets on the EU Gravy Train. The core values of the party are abandoned.
And if the vote isn't rigged?
Farage and his parasites are humiliated. The party has wasted thousands of pounds in a pointless vote. The calls for Farage to resign as leader grow louder. Agnew and Farage join a PEP in defiance of the membership. Others follow suit.
This will be the time for certain MEPs to grasp the nettle and reclaim the party from the corrupt elements that have led UKIP into the sewer.
So are you fit for the challenge?
Also see: LINK & LINK
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
Monday, 15 August 2011
UKIP: Napoleone's Birthday may be Farage's Waterloo
UKIP: Napoleone's Birthday may be Farage's Waterloo
#0630* - Napoleone's Birthday may be Farage's Waterloo!
Please Be Sure To
.
.
Re-TWEET my Twitterings
.
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable!
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
.
.
Napoleone's Birthday may be Farage's Waterloo!!!
.
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
&
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) .
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW
Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings & Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Monday, 1 August 2011
UKIP: Another rigged vote? This Time Lies in 'INDEPENDENCE NEWS'
UKIP: Another rigged vote? This Time Lies in 'INDEPENDENCE NEWS'
UKIP: Another rigged vote?
Steve Crowther: Farage sycophant
UKIP has a history of botched, some may say "corrupted" internal elections. It looks as if another one is on the way.
UKIP members are voting on whether the party stays true to its original mandate - EU withdrawal - or goes into a Pan-European Political Party (PEPP).
Eyebrows were raised when it transpired that the unnumbered ballot papers would be sorted at a private address, but now the integrity and impartiality of UKIP party chairman - sorry Executive chairman - Steve Crowther is being called into question.
The consistency of UKIP's leadership to participate in dishonesty and lies causes members to view everything they do with a jaundiced eye and for the public at large not to trust them for domestic politics where they regularly poll 2-8% only in the selected constituencies they choose to stand in!
An influential figure has suggested that Crowther misled members over the potential access to funds that UKIP would enjoy as part of a Pan-European Party.
Crowther has now admitted in an e-mail that:
"I did, inadvertently, state that 'foundation' funding had certain restrictions, where I should have said that PEP funding had those restrictions."Crowther would have know that the restrictions, which are tight, would apply to a PEP, and that the suggestions in 'Independence' magazine that UKIP could benefit from such funds domestically were nothing more than a blatant lie intended to deceive the membership.
Anyone wanting to know the rules need only read this blog and where they may be in doubt links are provided to source documents.
Why had Steve Crowther not read this blog? This blog contains more regarding PEPPs than any other single site on the internet that we have been able to locate.
Based on this alone there is surely reason to re-run the ballot from the start, and to discipline the liars.
.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
Thursday, 14 July 2011
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   OfflinePosition in UKIP: ex-Chairman, Gloucester & Gloucestershire Branches. UKIP Branch: Gloucester Full Name: Mike Smith Posts: 361 Keep UKIP Independent! |
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. |
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
&
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) .
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< Also:
General Stuff: http://gl-w.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
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU
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!
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.
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.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW
Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings & Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
&
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.
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:
.
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
.
.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
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)