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

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

on: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com

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. 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

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

Good Luck to Professor Tim Congdon & That L ETTER + Departure!

Good Luck to Professor Tim Congdon & That L ETTER + Departure!

Good Luck to Professor Tim Congdon

- I believe he offers UKIP members their best hopes for the future.

Tim Congdon is an economist, educated at Oxford University, with a long record of commenting on public policy issues, including writing sympathetically about the monetarist approach to macroeconomic policy. He has considerable experience working in the City of London and was the founder of the macroeconomic forecasting consultancy Lombard Street Research. He has also held a variety of academic appointments. Between 1993 and 1997 he was a member of the Treasury Panel that advised the Conservative government on economic policy^[1]. In recent years, he has expressed considerable skepticism about the direction the European Union has been moving in.
Congdon has been a prominent defender of the UK Government's action to lend to Northern Rock claiming that it made money for the government.^[2] He is also a small shareholder in Northern Rock, a fact that he has scrupulously disclosed publicly when writing on this issue.^[3]
Since May 2008, he has been the economic correspondent for Standpoint magazine.^[4]
Professor Congdon was the unsuccessful UKIP candidate for the Forest of Dean constituency in the 2010 General Election, obtaining 5.2% of the votes cast.
UKIP members consider Tim Congdon to be the only noticeable intellect in the Party Leadership and seen as having an interest as a reformist candidate, who would try to clean up the party, you can well imagine the forces ranged against him who would welcome him with all the joy of a pig in a Mosque.
You may recall his statement in late 2009 when he sided with some of the honest members of the senior members of UKIP, whose letter is below! There was a general level of disappointment in the realisation as to just how much the MEPs and their parasites 'had been 'captured' no longer seeing that their job was in Britain for Britain, not in Brussels for themselves'
Here is the letter he signed in opposition to the changes Farage tried to force on The Party. Changes to the constitution which were designed to give dictatorial powers to the Party Chairman. Farage has never forgiven any of the signators for this challenge to his personal fiefdom and his very personal control of his 'Milch Cow'.

Dear UKIP member,

We are writing this letter more in sorrow than in anger. At a time when every effort should be directed to our June election campaign, the NEC is wasting time and money on divisive and controversial changes to the UKIP constitution. It is now holding a members' referendum on this.

What is worse, the purpose seems to be to make it easier to get rid of members at a time when we should be concentrating on the reverse - expanding our membership. The changes will stifle freedom of expression within the party and reduce and weaken the power of members:

Amendments 6 and 19 (VOTE 2) The changes abolish the annual business meeting. Members will be deprived of their current absolute right to vote annual on the Party's accounts at a meeting of all members and to receive annual reports from all national officers. Yet the Party should belong to its members and the leadership should be accountable to them.

Amendments to 14 (VOTE 4) the changes will abolish the democratic right of members to elect a Disciplinary Committee at the annual business meeting. Instead a Disciplinary Panel of three will be selected arbitrarily by the unelected Party Secretary from a "pool" of about 55 people, themselves appointed by regional committees. Further changes will give the unelected Party Chairman (appointed by the Leader) arbitrary powers to suspend temporarily any member for any reason without a hearing.

These changes are worthy of the EU itself - reducing accountability and democracy.

Given that the leadership launched this attack on members' rights and is now asking your view, we feel it right to present the case against. We ask you to vote AGAINST all changes but particularly Vote 2 and Vote 4. The other changes are simply needless.

In less than six months voters will be choosing their MEPs. UKIP should be campaigning now for a major breakthrough. Yet it is low on the opinion polls and short of campaign funds.

The NEC discussed the coming campaign for the first time only a few days ago. Meanwhile it has been wasting energy on feuding and squabbles. It then launched a witchhunt for imagined enemies within. Two NEC members elected by the members were summarily kicked off the NEC; their crime apparently being to express their own opinions (and absolutely nothing to do with the BNP as some have tried to imply). The deputy treasurer was similarly removed. Ordinary members have been thrown out without being given the right to any hearing.

We condemn this navel-gazing and misdirection of effort. It must stop. We call on the leadership to accept that any democratic party is bound to have a spread of views; that intellectual debate can be healthy and that, amazingly, the Leader, the Chairman and the NEC may not always be right.

As prominent UKIP members we call on the Party to unite, dispose of this distraction quickly by voting against these unneeded changes and concentrate on the proper task in hand.

Yours sincerely

Sir Richard Body, was MP for 39 years

Tim Congdon CBE, leading economist

Roger Knapman MEP, former Party Leader and MP

Dr. Eric Edmond, elected NEC member

Piers Merchant, former UKIP Chief Executive and MP

Bruce Lawson FCA, former UKIP Treasurer

Martin Haslam FCA, former UKIP deputy treasurer

Del Young, elected NEC member

Dr. David Abbott, elected NEC member

Unfortunately despite his high level of academic economics and his consumate ability at critique of economics for worthy journals and the media Tim Congdon has one very big drawback as a leader - he is not a good speaker and suffers from quite surprising nerves which he has a tendency to calm before hand and at times excessively calm afterwards! Sadly despite his experience he is rather uncharismatic, typifying the accountant, mathematician, statistican, economist stereotype of a boring bean counter!
The inability to communicate with ease leads some of this propensity to explosive temper tantrums but perhaps the calming of nerves before hand may explain why this is apparent - some may remember Tommy Cooper whose nerves eventually led to full blown alcoholism and vodka on his cornflakes!
Tommy Cooper was by far a better commedian but as an economist of some repute I would assume Tim Congdon would count his shots and ensure he kept his powder dry ;-)
That said it would be a pleasant change to have an honest man in office who had an interest in Britain, the Party has survived to date without ever having a competent leader but there is at least every reason to believe Tim Congdon could be trusted.
If for no other reason than this report in: 
The Telegraph in May 2009

"Meanwhile, one of its most distinguished former supporters, the economist Tim Congdon, has left Ukip, claiming that it has been "captured by the European institutions" and neglects its British Eurosceptic supporters."

Related articles by Zemanta

• Who is mad enough to lead Ukip? (independent.co.uk)
• UKIP leadership race hots up (leftfootforward.org)