UKIP-vs-EUkip

UKIP-vs-EUkip
UKIP-vs-EUkip CLICK The Pic. for travel!

Thursday, 28 October 2010

Notes on the huge downside to UKIP joining a pan EUropean party 28-Oct-2010

Notes on the huge downside to UKIP joining a pan EUropean party 28-Oct-2010

On the day Cameron returns from Brussels having agreed to a de facto EU Treasury crying triumph I have saved the UK £400mn although we still have to pay an extra £400 mn I reproduce below Tim Congdon's notes on UKIP's similar triumph bought by Bloom for a similar huge strategic give away.

Bloom and his boss Farage are quite happy to sell our birthright for a mess of pottage as it says in the Bible!


The funding of pan-European political parties

The following notes have been sent to me by Mr. Richard Teather, senior lecturer in tax law at Bournemouth University, to whom I am most grateful.



1) Pan-European political parties (or “Europarties”) are meant to be funded "from the general budget of the European Union", although funds are actually administered by the European Parliament.

2) Europarties are alliances of national political parties.  Although theoretically individuals could join a Europarty directly, they generally do not.

3) Europarties overlap with, but are different from, the "groups" within the European Parliament. (Thus, before 1999 the Conservative Party was not a member of the European People's Party as a Europarty, but it was a member of the EPP Group within the European Parliament.)

4) The party must meet various conditions to be approved as a “Europarty”, the main ones being:
  a) it must have political representation (at MEP, MP or regional assembly level) in at least a quarter of EU Member States [i.e., in seven states];
  b) it must "observe, in particular in its programme and in its activities, the principles on which the European Union is founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law"; and
  c) it must "have participated in elections to the European Parliament, or have expressed the intention to do so".

5) Funding of 10.6 million euros per year* is available and to be shared between all the recognised Europarties.  Some funding (1.6 million euros) goes equally to each recognised Europarty, but the remaining 9 million euros is divided up according to the number of MEPs each Europarty has.  It is therefore very valuable for a Europarty to have MEP members. At a rough calculation, each MEP member must be worth almost 15,000 euros p.a. to the Europarty. (* The number relates to 2008 and is probably much higher in 2011.)

6) Restrictions are imposed on what a Europarty can do with its funds. In particular funds can only be used for pan-European campaigns, not for "direct or indirect funding of national political parties or candidates", and funds cannot be used "to finance referenda campaigns". 

7) Additional funding of 5 million euros (again, the figure relates to 2008) for European “foundations” where “foundations” are think-tanks linked to each Europarty.

8) A Europarty based on the current EFD group (which has 32 members) would get funding of almost 600,000 euros p.a. plus funding of around 250,000 euros for an associated "foundation". 


These notes make sense given what I have heard elsewhere about the funding of pan-European political parties, but raise further questions. In fact, the whole subject is puzzling.

On the face of it, the EFD group would pick up a little under one million euros a year if all its constituent parties – including the UK Independence Party – decided to form a Europarty. 
Frankly, this is chickenfeed relative to
i.         the larger issues raised by the UK’s membership of the European Union and
ii.       the sums of money routinely discussed in British political fund-raising.
I am astonished that anyone involved in the leadership of UKIP could want to convert the party into a Europarty for such a trivial amount.

True enough, the basis of allocation between the notional Europarties is such as to encourage “groups” to convert themselves into “Europarties”. The European Union imposes a limit on the total that can be spent on Europarties. In other words, the trough has only a finite amount of swill inside it. If one group in the European Parliament does not convert itself into a Europarty (such as the proposed “European Alliance”), the amount of swill available for the other groups (i.e., those which do convert themselves) is higher than would otherwise be the case. Hence, the two sentences in the Bonici e-mail, “The European Alliance will help parties dissiminate [sic – she meant ‘disseminate’] information by using European funds available to us, and if we don't apply the other Parties/Alliances such as the PES, EPP, Greens etc... will have the money which is allocated to us to share between them. Basically it is like giving ammunition to your enemy for free.”

Nevertheless, it remains unclear to me what advantage UKIP would get from belonging to a Europarty such as the proposed “European Alliance”. The 600,000 euros (plus or minus 250,000 euros) could not be used for a specifically British political purpose in this country, but must instead be part of a pan-European political programme of some sort. Since the UK Independence Party is the only significant political force in the European Parliament committed to its nation’s withdrawal from the EU, how could such a pan-European political programme be to UKIP’s benefit?

Interestingly, Europarty money cannot be used for the purposes of promoting referendums. Indeed, this seems to be specifically identified as an unacceptable destination of Europarty money. 
There is an obvious - indeed hilarious – discrepancy between item 6 in Richard Teather’s notes above, and item 4, with its assertion that the EU “is founded” on “the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law". Democracy? Oh, yes, the EU is founded on the principle of democracy, until Europe’s peoples vote against further European integration. When any of Europe’s peoples vote that way, the EU and its related “political class” ignores their democratic verdicts. Remember how the EU’s politicians and bureaucrats overrode referendum results in Ireland, France, the Netherlands, etc.

Since any money arising from Europarty status cannot be used to promote UKIP in the UK, I cannot see any purpose in seeking Europarty status. My view is that UKIP should have nothing to do with Europarties.


28th October, 2010

PAN EU POLITICAL PARTIES by Tim CONGDON 28-Oct-2010

Dear friends and supporters,

Two supporters have sent me further information about pan-European political parties (or, inevitably, "Europarties"). I am very grateful to

i. Lawrence Webb for some material on the history of the thinking - the highly integrationist thinking - behnd these parties and

ii. Richard Teather for information on the sums of money involved in their funding.
(Lawrence Webb is UKIP's London Region Organizer and Richard Teather is Senior Lecturer in Tax Law at Bournemouth University.) I have brought their material together in another note, again attached here.

In essence, UKIP in the UK would gain next to nothing from its MEPs converting their current "Europe for Freedom and Democracy" group into one constituent of a  larger pan-European party. Some money would become available to the new "Europarty", but only for the purpose of pan-European political activity. None of it could be used in the UK. In fact, the relevant EU regulation specifically says that the money must not be directed to fund the collecting of signatures in a referendum on, for example, continued EU membership.

In any case, the amount of money involved is trivial relative to the sums routinely mentioned in British political fund-raising. Does the future of UKIP really depend on one million euros handed to its MEP group, with numerous strings attached, by the European Parliament?

Of course I agree with the 2010 Torquay conference motion, that any decision on UKIP involvement with a pan-European political party (and/or foundation) must be put to the party membership as a whole. In any debate on the subject I will be emphatically opposed to UKIP having an association or involvement of any kind with a newly-formed pan-European political party.


Quote 
More on pan-European parties:

Threat or opportunity for the UK Independence Party?
Would the UK Independence Party betray its principles by joining a pan-European party of any kind, including a pan-European party which is (actually or allegedly) “Eurosceptic” in attitude? Or would UKIP benefit from extra funding made available – via the European Parliament – from the European Union?
In this note I discuss the origins of the idea of a pan-European party and the nature of the funding that would be opened up if UKIP were to join it.

Origins of the idea of pan-European parties

The first mention of pan-European parties was in 1992 in the Maastricht Treaty (section 41, added article 138a to the treaty of Rome). In its words, “Political parties at European level are important as a factor for integration within the Union. They contribute to forming a European awareness and to expressing the political will of the citizens of the Union." But – at that stage – political activity and party formations remained almost wholly national, and there was no suggestion that the European Union might fund political parties.

This changed in the 1997 Amsterdam Treaty, with article 138/191 envisaging a possible new mechanism to fund pan-European parties from the European Union‟s general budget. More explicitly, the 2001 Nice Treaty added a second paragraph to the Treaty of Rome. To quote, "The Council, acting in accordance with the procedure referred to in Article 251, shall lay down the regulations governing political parties at European level and in particular the rules regarding their funding." By implication, the European Parliament would become involved, and pan-European party funding would be regulated by the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, acting together.

In 2003 Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 (4 November 2003) defined what a "political party at European level" actually was. It also specified that EU funding should not go to national parties (as distinct from the new pan-European parties), either directly or indirectly. Further tweaking of the rules and regulations followed. The latest is Regulation (EC) No 1524/2007 (18 December 2007). The regulation both sets further limits on the activities that EU political funding may legitimately cover and paves the way for the financing of “political foundations” at the “European level".

The practical meaning of the regulation is that pan-European parties can set up and use EU money to meet the expenses of legally separate, but still affiliated “think-tanks”, while the funding of national parties as such remains forbidden. The revised regulation also contains wording which appears to gives pan-European parties the exclusive responsibility to campaign for the European elections. The precise message here is rather unclear and highly controversial, since – at face value – the EU appears to be trying to prevent a national party, such as the UK Independence Party, from participating in European elections. This is a grotesque insult to democracy and mocks the highfalutin verbiage in various EU founding documents.

The funding of pan-European political parties

The following notes have been sent to me by Mr. Richard Teather, senior lecturer in tax law at Bournemouth University, to whom I am most grateful.

1) Pan-European political parties (or “Europarties”) are meant to be funded "from the general budget of the European Union", although funds are actually administered by the European Parliament.

2) Europarties are alliances of national political parties. Although theoretically individuals could join a Europarty directly, they generally do not.

3) Europarties overlap with, but are different from, the "groups" within the European Parliament. (Thus, before 1999 the Conservative Party was not a member of the European People's Party as a Europarty, but it was a member of the EPP Group within the European Parliament.)

4) The party must meet various conditions to be approved as a “Europarty”, the main ones being:

a) it must have political representation (at MEP, MP or regional assembly level) in at least a quarter of EU Member States [i.e., in seven states];

b) it must "observe, in particular in its programme and in its activities, the principles on which the European Union is founded, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law"; and

c) it must "have participated in elections to the European Parliament, or have expressed the intention to do so".

5) Funding of 10.6 million euros per year* is available and to be shared between all the recognised Europarties. Some funding (1.6 million euros) goes equally to each recognised Europarty, but the remaining 9 million euros is divided up according to the number of MEPs each Europarty has. It is therefore very valuable for a Europarty to have MEP members. At a rough calculation, each MEP member must be worth almost 15,000 euros p.a. to the Europarty. (* The number relates to 2008 and is probably much higher in 2011.)

6) Restrictions are imposed on what a Europarty can do with its funds. In particular funds can only be used for pan-European campaigns, not for "direct or indirect funding of national political parties or candidates", and funds cannot be used "to finance referenda campaigns".

7) Additional funding of 5 million euros (again, the figure relates to 2008) for European “foundations” where “foundations” are think-tanks linked to each Europarty. Cool A Europarty based on the current EFD group (which has 32 members) would get funding of almost 600,000 euros p.a. plus funding of around 250,000 euros for an associated "foundation".

These notes make sense given what I have heard elsewhere about the funding of pan-European political parties, but raise further questions. In fact, the whole subject is puzzling.

On the face of it, the EFD group would pick up a little under one million euros a year if all its constituent parties – including the UK Independence Party – decided to form a Europarty. Frankly, this is chickenfeed relative to
i. the larger issues raised by the UK‟s membership of the European Union and
ii. the sums of money routinely discussed in British political fund-raising.

I am astonished that anyone involved in the leadership of UKIP could want to convert the party into a Europarty for such a trivial amount.

True enough, the basis of allocation between the notional Europarties is such as to encourage “groups” to convert themselves into “Europarties”. The European Union imposes a limit on the total that can be spent on Europarties. In other words, the trough has only a finite amount of swill inside it. If one group in the European Parliament does not convert itself into a Europarty (such as the proposed “European Alliance”), the amount of swill available for the other groups (i.e., those which do convert themselves) is higher than would otherwise be the case. Hence, the two sentences in the Bonici e-mail (which I sent out yesterday), “The European Alliance will help parties dissiminate [sic – she meant „disseminate‟] information by using European funds available to us, and if we don't apply the other Parties/Alliances such as the PES, EPP, Greens etc... will have the money which is allocated to us to share between them. Basically it is like giving ammunition to your enemy for free.”

Nevertheless, it remains unclear to me what advantage UKIP would get from belonging to a Europarty such as the proposed “European Alliance”. The 600,000 euros (plus or minus 250,000 euros) could not be used for a specifically British political purpose in this country, but must instead be part of a pan-European political programme of some sort. Since the UK Independence Party is the only significant political force in the European Parliament committed to its nation’s withdrawal from the EU, how could such a pan-European political programme be to UKIP’s benefit?
Interestingly, Europarty money cannot be used for the purposes of promoting referendums. Indeed, this seems to be specifically identified as an unacceptable destination of Europarty money. There is an obvious - indeed hilarious – discrepancy between item 6 in Richard Teather‟s notes above, and item 4, with its assertion that the EU “is founded” on “the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law". Democracy? Oh, yes, the EU is founded on the principle of democracy, until Europe’s peoples vote against further European integration. When any of Europe’s peoples vote that way, the EU and its related “political class” ignores their democratic verdicts. Remember how the EU’s politicians and bureaucrats overrode referendum results in Ireland, France, the Netherlands, etc.

Since any money arising from Europarty status cannot be used to promote UKIP in the UK, I cannot see any purpose in seeking Europarty status. My view is that UKIP should have nothing to do with Europarties.

Tim Congdon
28th October, 2010

Wednesday, 27 October 2010

Tim CONGDON'S TAKE ON APPARENT BETRAYAL OF UKIP BY MEPS 27-Oct-2010

Tim CONGDON'S TAKE ON APPARENT BETRAYAL OF UKIP BY MEPS 27-Oct-2010

From: TIMOTHY CONGDON <timcongdon@btinternet.com>
Date: 27 October 2010 20:26:01 CEST
To: undisclosed recipients: ;
Subject: Tim Congdon on the UK Independence Party and its possible involvement in a pan-European political party
 
E-mail sent to supporters of Tim Congdon’s bid for the leadership of the UK Independence Party, on 27th October 2010
This e-mail is sent to you because I have been informed - or have good reason to believe - that you are a supporter of my bid to become leader of UKIP. If you do not want to receive e-mails from me, perhaps you would let me know. The leadership campaign rules are intended to encourage discussion and debate, but also to prevent spamming.      
 ................................
Dear friends and supporters,
Since the 1950s the project of European integration has been driven by unelected bureaucrats, with the political leaderships (including some elected politicians) acting as figureheads and accomplices. The bureaucrats (I am thinking in particular of the secretariat of the European Commission) are very clever. They have found ways to bribe, often in rather subtle ways, any politicians that get in their way. Several members of Britain's Labour Party were opposed to the Common Market in the 1970s and early 1980s, but today luxuriate in the joys of a European Union position (of one kind or another).
Could even the UK Independence Party be bribed in this way? Of course not, you might say. Well, unfortunately it's a little more complicated. The last few weeks have seen rumours that a new pan-European political party would be formed, with the UK Independence Party (or at any rate UKIP MEPs) being invited to join. I have been hoping that these rumours were untrue. But an e-mail has been sent to UKIP MEPs by a lady called Sharon Bonici and, if I have read it correctly, it is a clear-cut invitation to participate in the development of a pan-European political party. I understand that it has been sent to UKIP MEPs. Indeed, the e-mail says that Mr. Godfrey Bloom has "confirmed" that he does wish to participate in the new pan-European political party, to be known as "the European Alliance". (The Bonici e-mail - with some prefatory notes by me - is attached, in both Word and PDF formats.)  
I stand open to correction (and would in fact like to be wrong), but my interpretation of the Bonici e-mail is that extra money will be made available to the MEPs of national parties - not necessarily to their salaries, of course - who decide to belong to the European Alliance. Perhaps Ms. Bonici - to whom I suppose this e-mail will be forwarded - might like to repudiate that suggestion, if it is untrue.
For myself, I would like to reiterate what I have said throughout the 2010 election campaign for the leadership of the UK Independence Party, that
1. I do not want to be a MEP,
2. I intend to finance from my own resources (up to £100,000 a year) a London-based office which is to concentrate on the organization of UKIP political campaigning in the UK, and
3. The centre of gravity of the UK Independence Party must be in the UK.
At the Torquay party conference in September I supported the motion, proposed by Steph McWilliam, that the party membership must be consuulted on the question of UKIP's involvement in a pan-European political party. As is well-known in party circles, Nigel Farage opposed the motion. The motion was in fact carried overwhelmingly. In my view, the party membership must be consulted on a possible development of this kind, which is basic to the purpose and definition of the UK Independence Party, and even in fact to its very name.
Gerard Batten MEP has sent me an e-mail to say that he will respect and abide by the Torquay conference motion.
I hope that all three other candidates in the current leadership election will confirm that they will abide by the Torquay conference vote on this subject and, more generally, will respect the principle of party democracy.
........................................
Memo on an e-mail from Sharon Bonici to interested individuals (including UKIP MEPs) about a new pan-European party, to be called “the European Alliance
I have highlighted key passages of the e-mail in red.
Note that the e-mail refers to:
1.      The proposed new party, to be called “the European Alliance”, without clarifying whether – for example – existing Eurosceptic parties, such as the UK Independence Party, are to keep their present names in future elections.
2.      The alleged urgency of making a decision about participation in such a pan-European party. (To whom and what are the “paper work” to be handed in? The question is basic.)
3.      “European funds” being made “available to us”. (From whom are such funds coming? The European Parliament? Assume that the funds come from the European Parliament. Then – in the event that UKIP MEPs were to participate in “the European Alliance” – their activities would be funded by the European Parliament, an institution avowedly central to the project of European integration.)
4.      The possibility of the “consent” of party members, the meaning of which is (to me at least) unclear, but may intended as a fig-leaf to pacify those UKIP members who at the 2010 Torquay party conference voted overwhelmingly that the issue of pan-European parties must be decided by the party membership.
5.      Godfrey Bloom, as already confirming his wish to participate in the European Alliance project. (Mr. Bloom is said to be “EFD”, not “UKIP”. EFD stands, of course, for “Europe of Freedom and Democracy”, the existing pan-European grouping to which a majority of UKIP MEPs are attached.)
6.      A closing line, in which the European Parliament is acknowledged as having the power “to approve the new Alliance”. This is – almost certainly – the power to approve the Alliance, meaning the power to approve the Alliance in order to establish the Alliance’s eligibility for various monies from the European Parliament because it meets certain criteria of pan-European-ness.   
(These notes prepared by Tim Congdon on 27th October, 2010.)
From: European Alliance For Freedom [mailto:europeanallianceforfreedom@gmail.com]
Sent:
26 October 2010 12:57
To: xxxxxxx
Subject: European Alliance For Freedom
Dear xxxxxxxxxxx,

 We are currently setting up
a new European Alliance and most members I spoke to who are joining or joined would really like to see you on board. I would like to set up a meeting with you to discuss and hope to get your interest in being part of this new poject. I will be in parliament today Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday this week and would appreciate if we can meet up at your convenience. We need to hand in all the paper work and signautres by the end of the week, so this is a bit urgent.

The
Alliance will serve to build campaigns across Europe to promote various causes; For example one of the first campaings we can engage ourselves in is to generate 1 million signatures to be able to instigate a pan wide European referendum on Turkey. The idea is to use the million signature clause according to the Lisbon Treaty.

We can build a multilingual website for people to sign up and advertise it in every member state. This will automatically gives us a huge database of Eurosceptics and people across
Europe with the same ideology. In time we need to campaign again on another issue we can engage these people on various campaigns and keep the Commission on their toes.

We will print research publication in various languages.

The Alliance will help parties dissiminate information by using European funds available to us, and if we don't apply the other Parties/Alliances such as the PES, EPP, Greens etc... will have the money which is allocated to us to share between them. Basically it is like giving ammunition to your enemy for free.

The
Alliance can finance various campaigns in your country if you are members with billboards, TV adverts,newspaper adverts,leaflets etc...or any other campaigns you decide you want to do in your country.

The Alliance will not get involved politically in any country without the consent of its members.

You can join as a Party or as individual members of the European Parliament. We would like to have you as our Danish representitives on board and our aim is to have representation in every European country including those that are not EU members such as
Iceland, Norway and Switzerland. We also hope that in the next European Elections we can become a strong voice in the European Parliament in 2014

So far we have the following confirmed -

1.Godfrey Bloom MEP - UK (UK- EFD)

2.Sweden Democrats - Sweden 20 MP's in the national parliament

3.BIW - Germany - 1 member in the regional parliament

4.Frank Van Hecke MEP- Belgium
   Philip Claeys MEP

5. Paksas Rolandas MEP (EFD)
    Imbraras Juozas MEP
 
 Still to confirm or be confirmed -

6. PVV - Nederlands

7.Provero Fiorello MEP - (Italy -EFD)
8.Paska Jaroslav  MEP- (Slovakia -EFD)

9.Fiorello Provera MEP -(Italy -EFD)
We do have other parties and members who are interested but at the moment we would like to take it step by step until we apply and everything is set with like minded people.

I thank you for your time and attention, should you wish for more info do not hesitiate to contact me by email or on
Mobile: xxxxxxxxxx.

Hope to receive a positive reply and to have you on board this new venture.

Attached please find a copy of the statute and an application form. For the moment everything is provisional and subject to change in the first congress
if we are approved by parliament as a new Alliance.

Best Regards,
Sharon Ellul Bonici

You are not only free to circulate this message more widely to other party members. You are positively requested to circulate it widely to as many party members as possible.
 
With best wishes                      
 Tim Congdon
Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 25 October 2010

Mike NATTRASS Offers Oblique SUPPORT - 25-Oct-2010

Mike NATTRASS Offers Oblique SUPPORT - 25-Oct-2010!
Mike Nattrass, MEPImage via Wikipedia
.
UKIP LEADER FARAGE CAN & WILL IGNORE THE NATTRASS LETTER!
A KNOCK OUT BLOW - NOT!
REVENGE IS A DISH BEST SERVED COLD BUT NOT WET & TOO LATE!

.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,
After many years of propping up Nigel Farage and covering for him - including much saber rattling against this blog with threats muttered of taking me to Court, Bankrupting me and bad mouthing me over many years with not a shred of evidence of any validity this little man finally has a Damascene conversion.
Well it was Winston Spencer Churchill, was it not, who said:
'Get on
Get honest
Get honour'.
I do incline to think that Mike Nattrass' transition from Nigel's poodle bitch to Rottweiler is completely unconvincing.
Do remember it was Mike Nattrass who had support for Tom Wise's criminality on his web site long after the Courts had sentenced Wise (A liar, A cheat, A fraud, A Grubby little crook who betrayed his Country for personal gain) to 2 years in Jail.
May we remind readers how Nattrass' foul mouthed and abusive attacks on Petrina Holdsworth to support Farage were deliberately leaked to remove her as Chairman and perpetuate the obfusscation of UKIP accounts which he admits Farage was fiddling for his own gain!
Mike Nattrass would seem to have served himself for as long as he could and much as I admire his denunciation in the letter below - Is he really trying to tell us that in all those years of working closely with Nigel Farage the best he could do was compile a letter without a single solitary fact that he had not read on this blog over several years - is Nattrass obliquely complimenting us by claiming this blog had ALL the facts, surely not!

Not one word in this letter is new, furthermore not one word in this letter is of consequence as although Nattrass stepped down from the Racist, anti Jewish, anti homosexual pro EU membership EFD Party of which he was happy to be a member until it was expedient for him to leave but a few weeks ago - this begs the question as to why he remained in support of Farage as every fact he puts forward is long since known and published!

Perhaps it is a little harsh of me, minded that he did at least eventually seek to salve his conscience, but perhaps Nattrass would care to explain himself:
Why did he collude in the corruption for so long?
Why does he claim to have a legal action against the Sunday Times when it is clear he has no case?
Why when he has known this for so long did he choose to release his excoriating attack in a leadership election that has dragged on for months on October the 25th. when ALL voting must be in the hands of UKIP for fiddling BY the 27th.?    
Dear All,

It may be too late but after all these years I can no longer stay silent.

In the previous Leadership Election I, together with all candidates EXCEPT LORD PEARSON were rubbished by Nigel Farage on TV and elsewhere. This ensured the election of Nigel's puppet Lord Pearson and allowed Nigel to continue to be the face of the party. That is Nigel's view of the election rules and I think it is only fair and high time that his methods were exposed, USING HIS OWN RULES.

Nigel already Leads the parliamentary Group and when he is also elected Leader this will amount to total control. Increasingly I am hearing the word "Spiv" used to describe him, from people who are not members but see his image. I am concerned that the UKIP party brand will be tarnished, even holed below the water line, by his monopoly of power.

Whilst Nigel is a very good speaker, he is also a control freak. He grabs all UKIP publicity to the detriment of any other UKIP spokesperson or MEP. He employs assistants with the MEP's budgets without allowing those MEPs any say. This, despite the fact that UKIP MEPs demanded a chance to interview those who were being employed with their money. Nigel agreed, then totally ignored that promise. Consequently he has his own "group funded" team around him and all "hiring" takes place via his close friend Godfrey Bloom MEP (this person is said to be banned by 4 hotels for urinating in the corridors)

Nigel's lack of experience in good staff management and his refusal to allow MEP consultation is complimented by the morals of an Alley Cat (and I will not go there). I have always said that this does not matter, because so long as we are all in the trench together with guns pointing at the enemy all are welcome. But he shot Nikki Sinclaire in the back when she became an MEP, for no Party reason, while she was giving all the effort she could give. She was expelled as a UKIP MEP for pointing out the Group facts. He does not like truth or competition.

I have put a lot of money, time and energy into promoting UKIP in the West Midlands and I watched it wrecked at the General Election by Nigel's chosen people (Lords Pearson and Monckton) who appeared from nowhere and failed to understand our basic strategy or even comprehend from where our votes are derived. Worse, Nikki, who has vast energy at election time, was stopped from being a UKIP MEP by Nigel and has not been given a chance to defend herself or to state her case (legal matters are pending). She and I were told by Lord Pearson not to get involved in the election and not to fund the campaign. In fact you will see that we both made considerable financial contributions but our campaign was deeply damaged. Also the subsequent enquiry into the campaign, requested by the WM candidates, was "dealt with" by Monckton (who thought I was behind it) and because of this we have had resignations from very keen activists.

All this West Midlands destruction because Nigel hates Nikki and wants to rubbish me!! Do you know how much money Nigel has contributed to this party...next to nothing.

I found allegations of fraud were brought against me when I stood for Leadership. These were in the Sunday Times. They melted away afterwards and had no foundation in truth, but they did the job intended.(My legal case against the Times is pending) Nigel has had a number of very real cases against him.. funny how that word does not get out.

My first major annoyance with Nigel's manipulations stem from the time when I was first elected in 2004 and all UKIP MEPs had a meeting to agree three very basic points. One was that we could not employ wives (other Parties did) and this was agreed. In fact my wife comes to each Parliament and does not get paid (not even travel expenses) and I said that she wanted to contribute any proper payment to the Party, but no, rules were rules and she could be paid nothing. It was then later exposed that Nigel's wife was being secretly paid out of his budget, breaking this rule. He did not seek any permission (to change his own rule) from the MEPs. He was simply "caught out" with both hands in the till. I fear that the whole Parliamentary Group in the EU is run for Nigel's financial and public image. I left that ugly group.

Nigel has derailed every leader since the very first, except peacemaker Jeffery Titford (under whom I was Party Chairman). He is therefore hated by them all (except JT). plus never to be leader Kilroy Silk who must feel that Nigel gave him a wrong prospectus.

I expect that Nigel will be elected leader as no one else is effectively allowed to stand without a spin campaign against them. I can see less MEPs in the UKIP squad when he does win.

There is a false attack on Tim Congdon from Boggers 4 UKIP, this must mean he is a real threat! Good.

Mike

MIKE NATTRASS MEP
Hardly revelatory I think you will agree!
How unfortunate that Nattrass' conscience caught up with him too late to be of any consequence.
Don't forget Mike Nattrass was well aware of the corruption and colluded in the suppression of the Returning Officer's exposee CLICK HERE Nattrass took absolutely no action for honesty or integrity until he had ensured his comments were utterly inconsequential - where was his integrity when his Regional Organiser/Fireplace salesman raided Nikki Sinclaire's office on the instructions of that duplicitous creep Christopher Gill (failed Tory) - Where was Nattrass' integrity when he wrote an eMail attacking John West in support of UKIP corruption?
No I am not impressed with Nattrass' contrived re-serving of stale news - surely a letter of apology would have been more apposite and as for the amount of 'Pot Kettle' in his letter it is quite staggering - I note he does not wish to visit the issue of morality!
BUT it does show just what low lifes UKIP has as MEPs and as a leadership claque as ALL collude in the corruption for their own personal gain.
The ONLY visible leaders on the UKIP horizon are Nikki Sinclaire (who Nattrass has followed) and Tim Congdon who many will remember resigned from UKIP as he was unwilling to be associated with the spiv Farage  and only returned when there was the very clear opportunity of unseating Farage with a view to CLEANING UP the ordure that is UKIP to make it electable - a status that Farage has totally failed to achieve as the party earns a mere 3.1% of the confidence of the electorate.
UKIP sees itself best led by an oik and to be sure one only needs to deal with UKIP MEPs, staff, supporters like Annabelle Fuller, Mick McTrough, Douglas Denny, Mark Croucher, Robing Collett, Andrew Smith, Stuart Gulleford, Stuart Agnew, David Bannerman, Stuart Parr, Peter Reeve, Lisa Duff, Jonathan Arnott, Malcolm Wood, Paul Nuttall, and the rest of the self serving trash gathered around Farage, to realise just how clearly they are most accurately reflected by an oik with childish stunts and idiotic posturings - at least he will not stand out from the crowd!
You will note that even the likes of Alan Wood were happy to remain silent until their personal ambitions were thwarted - Look at >They QUIT UKIP - Mainly In Disgust< in the Right SideBar and consider the huge number of people who have consciously distanced themselves from The Farage Fan Club.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 
 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
Enhanced by Zemanta

Saturday, 16 October 2010

Tim CONGDON's TEAM OFFERS DIRECT DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES 19-Oct-2010

Tim CONGDON's TEAM OFFERS DIRECT DEMOCRATIC PRINCIPLES 19-Oct-2010

NEITHER FARAGE or BANNERMAN OFFER OPEN HONESTY!

Put your questions to Tim and Gerard

 

Hi,

as ever UKIP have proved they are UTTERLY without Morality, Completely Without Integrity and bereft of Principles.

The fake leadership placement of Pearson was only marginally less farcicle than his ineptitude in the job keeping Farage's seat warm. Farage had no choice but to go along with it as it seems Stuart Wheeler had refused to put anything into UKIP's General Election campaign if Farage was leader - we understand that having read this blog & Junius and dipped into the squabblings on Butcher's squalid little Forum he had come to the VERY convinced position that Farage was working for himself.

Butcher's Forum showed just how vile many of the parasites within UKIP were, with the taunting and lies of, smears and abuse of people like Douglas Denny, Mick McTrough, Independent UKIP, Skeptyk and others and just how many and accurate are the critics of UKIP.

Clearly the chicanery and corruption surrounding Farage & Bannerman is indisputable - whether directly by them or on their behalf by their corrupt 'placements'.

The Leadership hustings have been a total farce with Farage/Bannerman placemen like the oleaginous oik Peter Reeve 'orchestrating' the hustings and selecting the questions and who shall ask them - it could be argued that UKIP has, if nothing else, learned from The EU how to more competently abrogate on their duties and befoul the concepts of democracy.

The purpose of the hustings is for the members to question and cross examine the candidates NOT for a paid handler to bring on his performing monkey and supply it with exactly the peanuts it best performs on!

You will note that serial liars have much to hide and as The Times and other papers have shown us both Nigel Farage and David Bannerman are both liars, cheats and self serving - surrounded by their own corrupt placement. Now they perform their stunts as performers with little ability between them as we can see from the fact that jointly they have enriched themselves in the two leading positions in UKIP for many years - without honour, without integrity and without competence.

As a result UKIP obtained under 30 elected seats out of about 19,000 in Britain and by election to Westminster after 17 years ABSOLUTELY NO ONE within so much as shouting distance and with 3.1% only of the electorate who trusts The Farage Party and with no personalities, no gravitas and no apparent competence just one performing monkey being endlessly and immaturely rude to people in between childish stunts - just what part of society was expected to vote for such ghastly people.

With not a single solitary training session let alone program of training just look at the caliber of their staff, their PPCs even ignoring the criminality of their MEPs.

Clearly there are efforts to rig even the leadership election to hang onto control of the CASH - like the monkey with its fist stuck in the cookie jar for fear of letting go of the biscuit!

Tim Congdon with clearly NOTHING to hide is only too happy to be willing to hold an open session to answer member's Questions - I appreciate Gerard Batten has colluded in the corruption and abuse of members having NEVER spoken out and willingly endorsing the racism, anti Judaism, Xenophobic violence, pro EU policy, holocaust denial of his EFD group which it is expected will - when Farage is reinstated as leader of The MEPs on the 6th. even if he were NOT leader he is likely - TOTALLY against the wishes of the members of UKIP - to dump UKIP in favour of his Pan EU Political Party The EFD, which he chairs and which is ALREADY REGISTERED.

The only hope UKIP has is to wrest UKIP back from the corrupt and self serving scum that currently control it.

Even then it will be an uphill battle to re-establish UKIP as an entity of some probity that the more than 3.1% of the electorate are prepared to trust.

Tim Congdon's international reputation as a leading market economist, with his experience of Government over many years and with his independently successful track record may just manage to make UKIP electable - rid of the trash that has gathered around Farage's toilet seat on which he has enthroned himself!


From: TIMOTHY CONGDON
To: undisclosed recipients:

Sent: Thursday, October 14, 2010 4:35 PM

Subject: E-mail to Tim Congdon's supporters in the 2010 UKIP leadership contest: announcement of 'Leadership Tele-Conference' on 18th October

E-mail sent to supporters of Tim Congdon’s bid for the leadership of the UK Independence Party, on 14th October 2010

This e-mail is sent to you because I have been informed - or have good reason to believe - that you are a supporter of my bid to become leader of UKIP. If you do not want to receive e-mails from me, perhaps you would let me know. The leadership campaign rules are intended to encourage discussion and debate, but also to prevent spamming.

Dear friends and supporters,

Here is the second e-mail announcement today. PLEASE CIRCULATE THIS MESSAGE TO ALL YOUR PERSONAL LISTS. Gerard, Steve and I want hard questions - and lots of them!

Announcement from Tim Congdon, Gerard Batten and Stephen Allison

- A LEADERSHIP TELE-CONFERENCE

We want to give as many members as possible the opportunity to discuss our plans for the UK Independence Party and to outline the policies we want to develop for the party. Some people have difficulty attending the hustings. We are therefore very pleased to announced that all members of UKIP are invited to put live questions to us from 7 pm to 8 pm on Monday, 18th October, on 0203 0032 666.

We look forward to hearing from you. The harder the questions, the better!

Put questions to Tim, Gerard and Steve LIVE on our UKIP Leadership Tele-Conference between 7.00pm to 8.00pm on Monday 18th October.

Dial 0203 0032 666 (local rate call) to put your questions and listen to the debate.

You are not only free to circulate this message more widely to other party members. You are positively requested to circulate it widely to as many party members as possible.

With best wishes

Tim Congdon
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, 13 October 2010

13-Oct-2010 - Tim CONGDON West Midlands HUSTINGS

13-Oct-2010 - Tim CONGDON West Midlands HUSTINGS
The sixth hustings of the 2010 UKIP leadership campaign were held in Birmingham on Wednesday, 13th October. At the hustings a young UKIP supporter, Jason Daly, took videos of Tim Congdon's contributions to the debate, including the one-minute answers to questions. These have been "uploaded" (if that is the right word) on YouTube and one ("No secret deals") is shown below. It explains that - when Tim and Gerard Batten are leading UKIP - any so-called "electoral deals" with other parties must be endorsed by a vote of the entire party membership. (Other YouTube videos can be accessed from the right-hand side bar on this page.) Gerard and I (i.e., Tim) are hugely grateful to Jason for his help.

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 01
13-Oct-2010]
Rejoining The Commonwealth?

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 02
13-Oct-2010]
NO SECRET DEALS

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 03
13-Oct-2010]
UK Policies to gain members??

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 04
13-Oct-2010]
Would UKIP End
With A Referendum?

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 05
13-Oct-2010]
Who Is The Most Media Savvy?

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 06
13-Oct-2010]
What Is Your Greatest Weakness?

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 07
13-Oct-2010]
What Will You Do If You Lose?

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 08
13-Oct-2010]
Do YOU Believe in Federal UK?

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 09
13-Oct-2010]
'Is UKIP The BNP In Blazers'?

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 10
13-Oct-2010]
Quantative Easing Your Opinion?

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 11
13-Oct-2010]
What Do You Think of 9 Point Plan?

T.C. @ W.Mids. HUSTINGS 12
13-Oct-2010]
How Will You Unite UKIP?
Enhanced by Zemanta

Tim CONGDON at the UKIP: Peterborough Hustings

UKIP: Peterborough Hustings


Ask yourself, which one of these men would YOU really vote for?

Three Midgets? A pet Poodle? Two drunks? Or a Gentleman?

East Midlands/Eastern Region Hustings meeting, Best Western Hotel, Orton Hall Hotel, The Village, Orton Longueville, Peterborough, PE2 7AM.

100 people attended the event which is quite poor considering that it was a joint event.

Derek Clark was conspicuous by his absence. He wasn't missed. He was probably worried that someone would ask him about that pesky OLAF investigation. See: LINK

Or was he just worried that someone would mention the time he betrayed UKIP by signing a declaration espousing the principle of "subsidiarity". Prior to this UKIP has always been in favour of total withdrawal from the EU. By accepting the principle of subsidiarity UKIP was now accepting the authority of the union to take decisions which are not devolved to national or regional government.

At the same time Clark also signed up to the principle of "reforming" the Common Agricultural Policy, something which UKIP had previously refused to recognise at all.

Don Ransome - his highly paid RO - was observed desperately looking for people to talk to. Poor man!

Congdon was very good. He is now really getting into his stride. He answered questions with clarity and commonsense.

Farage was his usual arrogant self. And Bannerman was just as slimy as ever.

However, the problem with the hustings is that questions cannot be asked from the floor. Questions for this hustings had to be submitted to Peter Reeve. And you can guess what happened to any awkward questions about the widespread corruption that has flourished under Farage's leadership. We know that several UKIPPERS wanted to ask Farage and Bannerman about the lack of financial transparency within UKIP. But they never got the chance.

It is the lack of financial probity within UKIP that a member of the Junius Team heard being discussed around the various groups of people who assembled before and after the formal proceedings.

Only by voting for Tim can we assure a new era of openness and honesty in the party. 


& to view the original on JUNIUS CLICK HERE
Enhanced by Zemanta