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

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


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 ( 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 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 
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< Also:
Details & Links:  
General Stuff:  
Health Blog.:  

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

Thursday, 19 May 2011

19-May-2011 - Still the shambles surrounding the spin and lies of UKIP Continue

19-May-2011 - Still the shambles surrounding the spin and lies of UKIP Continue

Clearly leaving Tim Congdon besmirched and demeaned by his associates in this debacle!


the complete incompetence of the handling of the leadership and the unprofessional and incompetent management of this challenge which was predicted in some detail BEFORE Marta Andreasen was dishonestly and corruptly put in place as a UKIP MEP (Details CLICK HERE)

The result was this article early on the morning of Thursday 19-May-2011

The endless use of UKIP affiliates who are proven liars and low lifes who abuse and defame members and supporters of UKIP who seek honesty, integrity, morality, transparency and probity to once more ressurecy UKIP and render it fit for purpose - Leaves them without credible defence when the truth leaks out!!

in the light of the habitual lies of both Skeptyk and also of Mick McGough which have been proven time and again, and in that they are in the habit of abusing any supporter or member of UKIP who dares to hold a different opinion - particularly those with a lengthy track record of seeking transparency and aiming to clean-up the party.

Those who hope to remove filth and liars like themselves from UKIP's employ and leadership claque - Their comments, criticisms and attempts at defence at validation are clearly of no value nor worthy of any respect or cogniscenece.

That those who post as skeptyk are too ashamed to put their name to their lies and the style of their odious behaviour demeans UKIP more than they could ever be considered of value as with those who post as Independent UKIP or the moronic Gothmog (aka William Shaw) - not only cowardly but clearly as with the liar Stuart Parr and Mick McGough who is a placement on the NEC such scum of the earth and liars do UKIP more harm than every they may foolishly consider they aid it.

As with association with the crass, amateur and foul mouthed Annabelle Fuller and her sordid little AthenaPR agency.

The comments of Barbara Booker in response to 'Geoffrey Collier' a loyal and supportive member of UKIP for many years who has been frequently defamed and abused by the scum gathered in ambition around the leadership position in UKIP for his efforts to improve the Party and bring various seemingly clear theives to book where it would seem possibly many £Millions have been stolen, misappropriated or embezzled.

Ms. Bookers comments are, as ever, both reasoned and substantiated:
Geoffrey, to clarify:
When trying to check the authenticity of the Tim Congdon email, I found it did not appear on Michael Heaver's blog as stated by skeptyk in post #1 of this thread. 

A google search brought up several references to it having been posted on 12 May, but in each case clicking the link produced: "Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog Michael Heaver's Blog does not exist". 

As I didn't then know about the Blogger problem of posts being temporarily deleted (the explanation offered by Richard Allen and skeptyk), I assumed MH had removed the post himself soon after making it, probably as a result of a complaint from TC. Hence my 'sceptical' comment.

I now see from that by 15 May most of the affected posts had been restored, with bloggers advised to republish any that were still missing, so when checking Michael Heaver's blog again I expected to find the elusive Congdon email back in its place. 

Not so. MH posted three times on 15 May, twice on 16th, once on 17th and once yesterday, but still no sign of a restored or republished email from Tim Congdon. My original assumption is therefore not only unchanged, but reinforced by further consideration.

One of the google references revealed enough of Michael Heaver's 12 May post to show that he was definitely linking Tim Congdon's comments with what he called "the small isolated group of members who are calling for a leadership challenge". See


An interesting email hit my desk this morning which shows us how disagreements in the Party should be conducted. Tim Congdon, the second place UKIP leadership challenger from last year has ruled himself out of joining the small isolated group of members who are calling for a leadership challenge. In his own words:Nigel has many gifts - he is an outstanding speaker and television personality. He has been elected, by a large majority, for four years. He must be supported by all party members. Should he remain leader indefinitely? Well, that is for the party to decide. At this stage I intend to throw my hat in the ring again in 2014, as I believe the party needs its centre of gravity to be in this country, not in Brussels or Strasbourg. You may forward...


Skeptyk continues the email in post #1. 

It appears from the break in the text and the repetition of "forward this to whomever you please" that it is actually quotes from two separate emails, probably written just after Nigel Farage won the leadership election last November. 

There is no proof whatsoever that TC wrote them in connection with any recent leadership issue, and it's my belief that someone has cobbled extracts together and recirculated them in a pretence of current support for Farage which may not exist. 

If this conclusion is incorrect, Michael Heaver should publish the email in its entirety, with date, title and name of recipient so that we can see it in context and check its authenticity.
The balance of the CLAIMED comment of Tim Congdon, as claimed by Michael Heavers and selectively quoted, as Barbara Booker states, was posted on this blog. CLICK HERE

Since Skeptyk's posting was subsequent to the removal from Michael Heavers' blog it is probable one of the dishonest creatures, posting as the cowardly proven liar Skeptyk, obtained the copy as posted by them on Anthony Butcher's UKIP controlled blog from the posting on this blog by me at CLICK HERE.
For the original of the article above CLICK HERE

Finally it would seem the dishonesty of the spin regarding Tim CONGDON's letter was exposed - UKIP's very crass and very amateur Press & Spin department finally having been embarrassed into publishing BOTH re-statements of Tim Congdon's honourable statement after the corrupt and dishonest leadership election made in support of the newly placed leader.

The TWO letters are claimed to be as follows:
I wonder in view of the fact that this first 'e'mail is claimed to have been sent on 11-May-2011 when it was actually sent by Tim Congdon and is the date genuine as it is seemingly a Forward of an early 'e'Mail with no provenance of source and as the poster has a proven track record for lies, dishonesty, corruption and bringing UKIP into disrepute I would doubt Tim Congdon would wish his name to be associated with such a low life!
Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:33 PM
Subject: Fw:


You ask me to support Nigel, following Marta's criticism yesterday. This is what I sent to David Platt yesterday. Yes, the party must support its leader. As I have always said, Nigel Farage has great gifts which are invaluable to the UK Independence Party.

But I will continue to argue that the centre of gravity of UKIP must be in the UK, not in Brussels or Strasbourg. Of course I support Nigel as leader, as we all must do.

All the same, I am not going to retract what I said in the leadership campaign last autumn. fought the leadership election in order to oppose (what I believe to be) the undue concentration of effort on the European Parliament, including the pan-European party proposal. Let us be clear. Both the European Parliament and a pan-European party are structures intended to serve and promote European integration. I am not just opposed to EU integration; I want us out of the EU altogether, as soon as possible - unilaterally, unconditionally, if necessary. I loathe and deplore the betrayal of my country.

So I worry about our MEPs, and their involvement in the European Parliament and the apparent enthusiasm of some of them for such monstrosities as "the pan-European party".

Please, please, forward this to whomever you please. I am again copying this to David Platt, anyway.


I have also redacted the name of the supposed recipient as this too - considering the dishonest track record of the poster is clearly also unreliable and we note again it shows no sign of source or title and thus clearly may be ages old and recycled.

It is unfortunate that UKIP leadership team has so very few individuals of any gravitas or merit that it is hard for them to comment on anything with overly much chance of their being believed!

Sent: Tuesday, 10 May, 2011 19:36:57
Subject: Re:


Nigel has many gifts - he is an outstanding speaker and television personality. He has been elected, by a large majority, for four years. He must be supported by all party members.

Should he remain leader indefinitely? Well, that is for the party to decide. At this stage I intend to throw my hat in the ring again in 2014, as I believe the party needs its centre of gravity to be in this country, not in Brussels or Strasbourg. - & there is so much work to do here in our own country. Somebody must push this line.

You may forward this to whomever you please


UKIP would do well when it eventually sets about cleaning-up the party with a view to making it fit for purpose and trustworthy to remember the admonishment of Sir Walter Scott in his poem of 1808 'Marmion' where in he wrote of the Battle of Flodden Field in 1513.

Wherein he stated:

'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive'

The clear implication being that lies beget lies and there is no value in accepting facts from proven liars - In this case Mick McGough - serial liar and abuser of any member who dares to try to Clean-up UKIP or discuss any view he does not endorse on behalf of his puppet masters.

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

Thursday, 12 May 2011

12-May-2011 - UKIP's first Support from Prof Tim CONGDON as tampered with!

12-May-2011 - UKIP's first Support from Prof Tim CONGDON as tampered with!


amateur hour became more than apparent within the unprofessional and clearly incompetent UKIP leadership as the aim of a leadership is first to find a competent leader and then build a team of the best and most competent in the Party and those who are loyal to THE PARTY and not themselves and the promotion of the Party performing monkey when the Party clearly and desperately need a competent leader with the ability to team build and put in place vision, strategy, structure, probity, training and clear morality and probity to LEAD forward the aims of THE PARTY.

Finally we have a brief extract from an 'e'Mail, we subsequently discover was requested of him in some desperation which is 'cut' and doctored for publication by an untrustworthy UKIP Leadership toady, to provide the right spin and it clearly damns with feint praise even in this condition.

To view the posting of the attempted rebuttal of Marta Andresen's press release sent privately to her on the morning of Thursday 12-May-2011 and then unprofessionally deliberately leaked by Mr. Amateur Hour - the author!

Also to view the selected phrases posted from Tim Congdon's letter:

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

Wednesday, 11 May 2011

09-11-May-2011 - Open WAR IN UKIP Silence from Tim CONGDON!

 09-11-May-2011 - Open WAR IN UKIP Silence from Tim CONGDON!


in the light of the withering attack on the patently obvious incompetence of Nigel Farage MEP as the leader of UKIP and the utterly incompetent team he had gathered around him as displayed by the catastrophic failure on virtually every fron in the local elections.

There was a total silence from Prof. Tim Congdon - in declaration of support of either Marta Andreasen's long predicted betrayal and denunciation of UKIP for her own personal interests - nor was there any intervention in support of Nigel Farage MEP who also seemed to be acting in his own personal interests.

To view the first news of Marta Andreasen's public press release:
Monday 09-May-2011 CLICK HERE 

My thoughts were published at the time:

it would seem that in a moment of self interest Marta Andreasen, Nigel Farage's pet project who he cheated and lied to place on UKIP MEP selection list has seen an opportunity for personal gain.

Will we shortly see hired hands march in to do battle wielding super injunctions ;-)

Whether this is an opportunistic move to join the EPP on her part, where she would benefit from membership of a larger group and more resources, where she would immediately be a Vice President as leader of a National Group in the composite as so far the EPP lacks a British flag - this then to raise her profile as a reformer in the EU so as to step across ensuring her election next time with the center right Spanish Group.


This is a piece of delicate gambling where the Lib.Dims. may well be courting her to join their ALDI Group to curry favour with a hint of pretend Scepticism by capturing a UKIP scalp - which would not only enhance their group but also improve their credentials with many a EUroSceptic Tory MP or even voter.


Marta Andreasen has made this move in her own interest alone as with her earlier venal actions and dishonest claims.

Clearly her move in such a public manner is a product not of improving UKIP and its footing but her own as she is reveilled by too many in the party who have seen through her antics and note her untrustworthy, self serving dishonesty.

Some by now may have read her novella which she has used UKIP to exploit and market yet others may well have read the series of Court Cases that have consistently found against her. Some may have noted her series of departures - all too often under a cloud and others may have watched her trapped like a rabbit in headlights in her interview by Tim Sebastian which exposed her fake background and CV!

Already Farage - who is a consumate performer but utterly bereft of Officer Qualities and without leadership skills or judgement - has lost 25% of his MEPs leaving him to his racist, anti Jewish, Xenophobic, violent anti homosexual pro EU membership reformist EFD Group.

It looks as if he could loose at least 3 more if they are not as gonadically challenged as they seem and now Andreasen is clearly making a personal interest power play to position herself.

Let us watch wait and see who blinks first!

Farage has already sent in his Press Office and his puppet chairman - Let Battle Commence:

But I must say I believe the Oxus River was more spectacular and both Sorahb & Rhustum more intriguing :-)


For details of Marta Andreasen's Betrayal & its Prediction CLICK HERE
For more information on Marta Andreasen CLICK HERE
To additionally research use >SEARCH< at the top of the Right Hand Side Bar at:

For the bulk of the background to this denunciation and an article by The BBC
Still total silence from Tim CONGDON!

Then on Wednesday-11-May-2011 Roger Knapman the retired MEP & past leader of UKIP who led the party to some 30,000 members and from 3 to 12 MEPs figures he passed on to Nigel Farage who by din't of dishonesty and corruption was placed as the new leader - promptly alienating and losing the support of MEPs one of which he had lied to and another he lied about - Just as there was a departure from The NEC of fundamentally competent and honest individuals who wanted no part of the corruption that became increasingly apparent.

This led in turn to a collapse in real terms of membership to a figure that at one time was seemingly around 10,000.

Roger Knapman did NOT join in the condemnation of Farage but re-issued a statement he had made when he quit membership of Farage's odious claque in the Pan EU EFD Political Group unwilling to support anti Judaism, racism, violent anti homosexuality and a pro EU membership reformist stance in betrayal of the core principles of UKIP activists and members of patriotic integrity - he also renounced the EU centric self serving and self enriching betrayal of the electorate.

This announcement was a re-affirmation of his principles made AFTER the election so as not to disturb the electorate.

being a retired Leader he approached Nikki Sinclaire or a member of her staff to distribute/publish his statement.

Unfortunately a junior in Sinclaire's office sent the mail out over her contact data for press contact - when I posted this and subsequently it was posted on Junius Blog an EU employee phoned John West, who was known to be in touch with me to ask if he could contact me to request redaction of the personal and irrelevant contact data - this I did and contacted Junius as requested who also promptly removed it. I had some difficulty contacting BDF but eventually (it took a littel longer) they too redacted the error.

This detail can be seen at CLICK HERE

This takes us to Wednesday 11-May-2011 and still no sound from Tim Congdon.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

Saturday, 23 April 2011

APRIL - Tim CONGDON - 'No' to a Pan-European Party

 APRIL - Tim CONGDON - 'No' to a Pan-European Party

Betrayal of the Party's ideals

By Prof Tim Congdon

Like other members of UKIP, I have been horrified at the transfer of governmental powers from my country to the European Union. In 1972, when Parliament voted to join the then ‘Common Market’, no one foresaw how far the UK would lose its economic and political independence in less than 40 years.

Indeed, given Mr. Heath’s promises and the apparently harmless wording of the Accession Treaty, no one could have foreseen that loss of independence.
Like most members of UKIP, I am also horrified that a proposal is being made for our party to associate itself with parties from other European countries in order to create a ‘pan-European party’. As of now, no one can forecast exactly what might happen to UKIP as one element in that pan-European party, because – as usual – the relevant EU documents are badly-written, complex and open to several interpretations. But who could be surprised if the eventual outcome – over many years, perhaps – is that UKIP loses its identity and becomes absorbed in a political movement that is mostly ‘European’ in character?

The continued existence of our nation as a nation is threatened by our membership of the EU; the continued existence of our party as a party is threatened by the proposal that it belong to a pan-European party.
The debate about UKIP and pan-European parties is therefore not a minor sideshow for our party and its members; it is about nothing less than the survival of our party with its own name and identity. The UK Independence Party must remain the UK Independence Party. It must not become a subsidiary of ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ or an annex to ‘the European Alliance’.

Am I exaggerating? Check the wording of the European Commission’s regulations on the subject. The last one – Regulation (EC) No. 1524/2007 (of 18 December 2007) – defined the activities that European Parliament political funding might finance. The explicit intention was to establish ‘political foundations’ at ‘the European level’. In other words, over the long run no money would be made available to political parties unless the purpose were to transform national politics into European-level politics.

All the arguments for a link-up with a pan-European party are false. First, it is claimed that – by merging UKIP into a new ‘European Alliance’ (as suggested in the notorious ‘Bonici e-mail’ of 27 October 2010) – we can tap into another million euros of European Parliament money. Indeed, the EU bureaucrats have cleverly told MEPs that the size of the jam pot is fixed, so that – if UKIP refuses to belong to a pan-European party – the remaining jam will go to the other MEPs who do form such parties.

This is the sort of cunning trick that has persuaded so many of Britain’s politicians to hand over power to Brussels, Strasbourg and Frankfurt since 1973. But in fact the million euros cannot be directed to any UKIP political activity in our own country. That is what the European Commission’s regulations say very clearly. The one million euros would not in fact be for UKIP at all.

Following the German model of state-subsidized think-tanks, the money would have to stay in Brussels to pay for ‘research’ from a new ‘foundation’ (that is, a think-tank).

Secondly, their advocates say that involvement in pan-European parties would give UKIP more prominence in debates in the European Parliament, which would then enhance our media visibility. This is nonsense.

In the brave new world of pan-European parties UKIP’s MEPs – who owe their position to the hard work and devotion of the party membership in the UK – may say and do wonderful things in the European Parliament.

But they will not do so as MEPs attached to UKIP. They will instead be advertised as MEPs of ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ or ‘the European Alliance’. Sure, there will be extra media visibility for the party to which MEPs belong. To be precise, there will be extra media visibility for ‘Europe of Freedom and Democracy’ or ‘the European Alliance’.

The voice of UKIP as the United Kingdom Independence Party will not be heard more loudly if it becomes affiliated to a pan-European party. On the contrary, it will be increasingly forgotten and ignored.

Many of the party’s best and most active members are dismayed – even appalled – that UKIP participation in a pan-European party has been proposed. They see it as a betrayal of the party’s ideals, just as their country’s membership in the EU is a betrayal of their country’s institutions and traditions. They are right. The pan-European party idea does betray them. UKIP must have no connection of any sort with a pan-European party.
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

Thursday, 7 April 2011


With The Amount Of Publicity & The Dynamism Of Little Gerald I Guess They Will Get 20 or 30!
I'm Surprised Nigel Farage Gave Permission For Someone To Speak Without Him - I don't suppose he expects many to bother going!

Almost as lame brained as holding a London Rally on Cup Final Day!!



I wonder if you have seen all the advertisements for this major even!

OK I guess not!

Questions for Gerard Batten EFD MEP

Gerard Batten is due to attend an open UKIP meeting this Saturday in Hertfordshire. We trust that Gerard will be asked why he is still prepared to sit in the extremist, racist, anti Jewish & pro EU membership EFD Group when Mike Nattrass MEP, Nikki Sinclaire MEP and Trevor Colman MEP are not.

We would also be interested in his opinions as to why no action has been taken by UKIP's NEC after The Sunday Times obtained incriminating statements that UKIP MEPs Agnew and Bannerman - the region's UKIP MEPs - were /fraudulently obtaining tax payers' money and illegally paying the UKIP Regional Organiser Peter Reeve out of their EU allowances.

Surely, their action has brought the party into disrepute as the story was featured in several newspapers and is clearly true as Agnew was caught on camera boasting of it!. See: CLICK HERE

That both Stuart AGNEW & David BANNERMAN are under investigation for Fraud with prima Facie Evidence should surely cause UKIP pause for thought and that they lacked the integrity, just as with Derek CLARK MEP, speaks volumes of the dross that are UKIP's Leadership and its parasites.

And finally, what will Gerard do to oppose Farage's desire to make UKIP part of a new pan-European party? See: CLICK HERE

Public Meeting
Broxbourne Civic Hall
Saturday April 9th
10:30 am onwards

Speakers include

Professor TIM CONGDON. CBE. One of the UK’s most influential economists.

Conservative and Labour governments have surrendered most of the UK’s powers of self government to the European Union. We must return the control of our Country, our laws, our economy and our borders to our own Parliament at Westminster. This is your chance to meet and question National and Local representatives of UKIP - the ONLY major political party putting Britain and the British People FIRST !

For your country’s sake, for your children's sake - Vote UKIP!

Buffet lunch available, also refreshments, see overleaf.

Website- e-mail;

Tickets available for the buffet lunch at £6 each, bookable in advance.
Please send me ………… tickets for the buffet lunch at the Civic Hall on 9th April 2011.

Post code……………………..Tel or e-mail…………………………….

Please send to UKIP Broxbourne & Harlow Branch,
St Helens, Middle Street, Nazeing, Essex. EN9 2LB.
Telephone 01992 892101

The Civic Hall is in Hoddesdon at postcode EN11 8BE. It is situated just off Cock Lane, South of the Town Centre and Golden Lion Pub. There is ample parking between Cock Lane and the Hall Complex.

This is a great opportunity to hear and question very good speakers, and also meet old and new friends during the buffet lunch, and maybe later support our very own UKIP pub, The Golden Lion. Cromwell is said to have frequented the area, so maybe his ghost will have a few suggestions regarding the Traitors!

Hope to see you, Martin Harvey.

Printed and promoted by Martin Harvey of St Helens, Middle Street, Nazeing , EN9 2LB. on behalf of The United Kingdom Independence Party.

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance
Reclaim YOUR Future 
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

Tuesday, 25 January 2011

25-Jan-2011 - Professor Tim Congdon CBE is TFA's new Hon. Chairman

Professor Tim Congdon CBE is TFA's new Hon. Chairman

Tc001 After magnificent work as TFA’s Hon Chairman, Roger Helmer has stepped down on doctor’s orders.  We are delighted that Roger will remain actively involved in our work as a Council Member of The Freedom Association.

Simon Richards, Director of TFA, writes, “It was with great regret that we accepted Roger’s resignation and I would like to thank him for the superb work he has done on our behalf.  It has been an immense pleasure to work with a man so committed to freedom in so many areas."

Welcoming Tim Congdon as TFA’s new Hon. Chairman, Simon commented, “I have admired and respected Tim for decades, and well recall that he was one of the earliest, most consistent and most eloquent opponents of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and European Monetary Union.  Tim is a man of principle, a man of intellect and a man of passionately held convictions which are entirely in line with those of The Freedom Association.  As a successful economist, businessman and writer, he will give TFA’s work new ‘clout’.”

Professor Congdon writes:
“I am much honoured to have become Chairman of the Freedom Association.  Our freedoms are more seriously challenged today than they have been since the Second World War, partly because our own political elite has forgotten why they matter, but also because our membership of the European Union has undermined our institutions and traditions.  I look forward to working with Simon Richards and his colleagues, to do what we can to restore and strengthen the freedoms associated with the British way of life.”

May I add my congratulations - Greg_L-W.
Enhanced by Zemanta