.
Hi,
yet
further proof that UKIP in its present state is clearly unfit for
purpose which as some with long memories will remember was to actively
work to Leave-The-EU - NOT just to function as a cult for the enrichment
of a small clique of self serving nere do wells and utter incompetents
supported by a claque of liars, rogues and cheats seeking preferment
bribes and crumbs from the EU Gravy Train!
Many of who
are seriously out of control whether using their own names, having no
reputation or self respect to defend like Mick McGough NEC, Annabelle
Fuller PR, Marta Andreasen
MEP,
Gawain Towler PR, David Bannerman MEP,Douglas Denny NEC, Paul Nuttall
MEP, Peter Reeve Regional Organiser, Stuart Gulleford, Derek Clark MEP,
John Ison, Gerard Batten MEP, Mark Croucher, Stuart Agnew MEP, Stuart
Parr, Godfrey Bloom MEP and the like or the small army of sock puppets
too ashamed to use their own names to peddle their own particular brand
of filth like Skeptyk, Independent UKIP, SDP, Gothmog, Stathan and the
like!
Well respected National Economist, broadcaster
and University Professor Tim Condon makes it yet again clear that UKIP
in its present form is unfit for purpose, riven with squabbling factions
all seeking their own place on the gravy train as they thus aid and
abet The EU and its undemocratic, profligate and malign institutions and
ambitions.
Dear fellow members of UKIP
(and
others concerned about the UK's relationship with the EU),
Members of the
UK Independence Party are being asked to vote for a new Constitution. It is very
important that – in the run-up to the 2014 European elections and the 2015
general election – UKIP’s members agree to and respect their party Constitution,
and that the Constitution itself be clearly written and legally unambiguous. The
present Conservative-LibDem coalition government is mediocre and unconvincing,
as well as being essentially Europhile.
These
are ideal conditions for minority parties to pick up protest votes. UKIP ought
to top the poll in the 2014 European elections and at least to double its share
in the next general election (i.e., to reach at least 6% in the national vote).
But – as far as possible – UKIP must concentrate on “outfighting”
(fighting our enemies), not “infighting” (fighting each other).
Unhappily, many
influential members – including, for example, Mike Nattrass MEP and several
branch chairmen – are concerned about the contents of the new Constitution. Last
year the party had a major debate about its attitude towards pan-European
political parties. I took an active role in that debate and helped put together
some of the key information on the meaning of PEPPs.
I was delighted that – after an open, democratic and
occasionally quite fierce debate – the party’s members voted by more than two to
one that UKIP must not become associated with a PEPP.
The current
concerns about the Constitution focus on two issues,
- the
possibility that, under clause 3.4 of the proposed Constitution, the Leader and
the National Executive Committee could override last year’s PEPP vote and take
the party, and its MEPs, into a PEPP, and
- the selection
of candidates for elections.
I am not in
this e-mail going to cover the second of these. However, I do feel very strongly
that the party membership’s opposition to a PEPP must be respected by the Leader
and the NEC. I have therefore written the following Open Letter to Nigel Farage
and asked him to reassure members.
Will Nigel give us a clear and definite commitment that,
while he is Leader, UKIP will have nothing to do – no connection whatsoever –
with a pan-European political party, a structure which – as everyone knows – is
a creation of the EU and a bribe from the European Parliament to MEPs? If Nigel
can give us that commitment, I will support the new
Constitution.
The Open Letter
appears below:
Open
Letter to Nigel Farage MEP, Leader of the UK Independence Party
Dear
Nigel,
12th
February, 2012
Several
party members have written to me voicing their concern about the proposed new
Constitution. Some have sought my opinion on the Constitution and asked for my
recommendation about how they should vote. One of their main concerns relates to
clause 3.4 which reads,
The Party
may cooperate with other like-minded democratic parties, institutions and
organisations for any purposes which are wholly consistent with its objectives,
whether such be in the United Kingdom or elsewhere for such time and to such an
extent as the Leader and the NEC deem necessary and expedient in order to
advance the Party’s objectives.
A
commonly-held view is that this clause would allow the Leader and the NEC to
form an association between, on the one hand, the Party and its MEPs, and, on
the other, a pan-European political party established under the European
Parliament’s auspices.
We
perhaps do not need to remind ourselves that the UK Independence Party had a
major intra-party debate last year about a possible association between it and a
pan-European political party. That debate took up time and energy. I was myself
on the panel of speakers opposed to a PEPP relationship and spoke to three
“hustings”-type meetings.
I was delighted
that the membership voted by a decisive margin of just over two to one that UKIP
should not become associated with a PEPP. I was also sorry and
disappointed when, late in the campaign, you supported in an article in
Independence a link between UKIP and a PEPP. I was sorry and disappointed
not least because in January 2004 you had said that UKIP was “opposed on
principle to the idea of state funding of political parties, either
nationally or at the European level”. (The italics are mine.)
You have
frequently expressed your dismay about the lack of democracy in the European
Union. I have admired your speeches and interventions in the European
Parliament. I agree with you 100% that the un-democratic and centralizing
direction of travel in the European Union must be deplored. But consistency then
demands that UKIP conduct itself in a fully democratic spirit. If we deplore the un-democratic and centralizing
direction of travel in the EU, surely UKIP itself must be a model of democracy.
I might
myself be willing to give you the benefit of the doubt on clause 3.4, but
several party members are unhappy. Accompanying this letter is another, from
Michael Foulston, chairman of the Mole Valley and Epsom branch, to his branch
members. The worries set out in that letter seem to me to be very
understandable.
I now
come to the crux of the matter. Will you,
during your period as UKIP Leader, respect the result of the democratic
2011vote on the
pan-European political party issue? More precisely, will you given a clear and
definite commitment that you will discourage and prevent any association
between, on the one hand, UKIP and its MEPs, and, on the other, a pan-European
political party established under the auspices of the European Parliament?
As we both know, such pan-European political
parties are funded from the European Parliament’s budget, and its officials
check and decide the compatibility of such expenditure with the EU’s wider aims.
Those aims are totally at variance with UKIP’s.
If you
give a clear, definite commitment that you will stop an association between UKIP
and a PEPP, I will myself vote ‘Yes’ to the Constitution and I will recommend to
others that they do the same; if you cannot give such a commitment, I will vote
‘No’ and recommend to others that they also vote ‘No’. Time is
pressing, and I would appreciate your early reply. If I have not heard from you
by Friday, 17th February, I will be voting ‘No’. (Let
me note that I have little doubt that the Constitution will be voted through,
whatever the outcome of this exchange between us. At any rate, if UKIP does
under your leadership link up with a pan-European party, party members will know
where you stand.) I look forward to your reply.
Yours
sincerely,
Professor
Tim Congdon CBE
Economics
Spokesman, UK Independence Party
Runner-up
in the 2010 UKIP leadership election
Also attached below is a letter from Michael Foulston, Chairman of
the Mole Valley and Epsom branch, to his members. It is a good example of the
worries being expressed by UKIP activists about the Constitution.
I agree with every word and hope that the letter has wide
circulation throughout the party. Nigel Farage must give us an unbreakable
commitment that UKIP will not – repeat, not – become associated
with a pan-European political party.
With best wishes,
Tim Congdon
Here is the letter from Michael Foulston, Chairman of
the Mole Valley and Epsom branch, to his members:
Michael
Foulston stood for UKIP in Dorking South where he received 1/10th. as
many votes as the elected winner with 141 vote which sadly was similar
to most of UKIP members who stood unled and unguided by the unfit for
purpose leadership!
Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 16:26:42 +0000
From: m.foulston@btinternet.com
Subject: UK INDEPENDENCE PARTY
To: m.foulston@btinternet.com
To all members of the Mole Valley + Epsom UK Independence Party (plus copy to
Toby Micklethwaite and Roger Bird)
Dear Member
You should have by now received a copy of the
new draft party constitution on pages 11-14 of the party’s magazine Independence. I hope that you will
take the opportunity to read through this proposed change and vote.
My reason for writing to you about this matter
is that having discussed it with your branch secretary Bob Cane and branch
treasurer Peter Lindsay, I find that we do share some concerns. In particular,
we feel it is regrettable that there has been no consultation period allowed
and members are being asked to vote Yes or No to the whole document as it
stands.
Our objections relate in particular to paragraph
3.4 of the draft constitution which states:-
3.4 The Party may
co-operate with other like-minded democratic parties, institutions and organisations
for any purposes which are wholly consistent with its objectives, whether such
be in the United
Kingdom
or elsewhere for such time and to such extent as the Leader and the NEC
may deem necessary and expedient in order to advance the Party’s objectives.
You will probably recall that the Party spent
much time and trouble last summer because of the wish of certain MEPs to join a
Pan-European Party. That was firmly vetoed by the membership by a vote of 5161
to 2535 on a 49·2 per cent turnout.
Bob, Peter and I are anxious to ensure that we
should do all we can to ensure that the Party is not closely associated or
grouped with other European parties which are at variance with the principles
of UKIP. That paragraph as it stands is far too widely drawn and could be
interpreted as an “enabling” clause which might allow just the sort of
entanglement which was rejected last year. We would like this aspect of the
document to be clarified, expanded and much more closely defined.
Obviously, each member must vote as he or she
sees fit – and, indeed, I hope you will participate in the vote. However, as it
currently stands, I am personally voting against this new constitution as are
Bob and Peter.
Regards
Michael Foulston
Chairman, Mole Valley + Epsom UK Independence Party
Loath
as I am to quote that vile specimen of humanity Tony Blair, war
criminal traitor, and self serving self enriching liar 'Time for a
change' - to be fair he was also only interested in himself and self
enrichment regardless of the damage he did to Britain seemingly like
UKIP leadership and its claque as they work so hard to support The EU
which is sad when you think of the huge number of decent but rather
gullible, well meaning but easily conned UKIP members at large!
. .
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
