UKIP-vs-EUkip

UKIP-vs-EUkip
UKIP-vs-EUkip CLICK The Pic. for travel!
Showing posts with label UKIP. Show all posts
Showing posts with label UKIP. Show all posts

Tuesday, 12 July 2011

Tim Congdon on Pan-European Political Parties (PEPPs) - 12-Jul-2011

Tim Congdon on Pan-European Political Parties (PEPPs) - 12-Jul-2011

Hi,

I regret that the conversion from Excel to blogger is not wildly successful hence SOME of the figure work is a little difficult to puzzle out - If I trip over the data in a more understandable format I will post it here also!


More from Tim Congdon on Pan-European parties



Political parties at European level [meaning: pan-European parties] are funded from the general budget of the European Union. This budget may not be used for the funding of other political parties and in particular national political parties.” Repeat: the EU budget for pan-European political parties “may not be used for the funding of national political parties”. I quote from the official website of the EU (http://europa.eu/). My quotation is the official and definitive statement on the subject.

The UK Independence Party is undoubtedly a national political party. Indeed, its purpose is to restore in full the independence of the United Kingdom. As every member of UKIP deplores, this independence has been largely stolen from our country by a corrupt political elite collaborating with the EU’s bureaucracy. If UKIP is not a national political party as the EU understands that concept, I will eat my hat. So the EU’s budget for pan-European political parties is not to be used by national political parties, while UKIP is a national political party. It follows – logically, inescapably – that none of the EU’s money for pan-European political parties can be used by UKIP in the United Kingdom for UKIP’s own ends.

At this point you might say,Full stop, end of story. There is nothing more to say. Let’s move on to the vital, important work that UKIP must do to take Britain out of the EU.” And I would agree with you 100%. Nevertheless, the team pushing for UKIP’s association with a pan-European political party claim on their website that an extra £400,000 a year would come to “our party”. This claim – which is their only argument – is false. No money would become available to “us” in UKIP for the purposes of “our party”. Do not believe the “yes to PEPPs” side if that is what they say.

How much money has been approved for all expenditure on PEPPs?

The 2011 EU Budget has a section on the European Parliament's expenditure and within that there is an allocation for 'political parties at the European level' (i.e., PEPPs)
The figures are, 17.4m. euros for the PEPPs as such, and 11.4m. euros for the Foundations.

This 28.8m. euros is divided up, according to a key in EP regulations.

But surely, you might protest, the “yes” side cannot be indulging in total fantasy. I have over the last few days carried out some homework on various EU and European Parliament websites, and am confident that I know how the “yes” team have derived their numbers.

The full story is quite complicated. You need an Excel file (which is available from me at
timcongdon@btinternet.com and is also attached with this e-mail) to appreciate the detail of the calculations, but I can give the main points here. Remember that any sums arising from UKIP’s association with a pan-European political party come out of the EU Budget. That is why their expenditure is subject to European Parliament rules.

The promotion of pan-European political parties is seen by Eurocrats as part of the larger process of European integration. Indeed, so keen are the Eurocrats to expand pan-European political activity that they are hugely increasing the amounts spent. In 2009 the EU’s expenditure in this area was just under 17 million euros, whereas in 2011 the budget allocation has leapt to 28.8 million euros. The cynical and wasteful increase of almost 70 per cent in a mere two years is an insult to our taxpayers. It has occurred while our own government has had sharply to cut expenditure.

How does the key work?

EU regulations say
'The available budget for the political parties is distributed annually as follows: 15% is distributed in equal shares among the parties which have obtained a positive decision and 85% is distributed in proportion to the number of elected members.'

Box shows sums available and basis of apportionment.

Based on no. of PEPPs
Based on no. of MEPs

Total PEPPs, m. of euros 2.61 14.79 17.4
Foundations, m. euros 1.71 9.69 11.4

So, for example, of the 11.4m. Euros for the Foundations (i.e., think tanks), 1.71m. Is distributed according to the number of PEPPs which have 'obtained a positive decision' (meaning they have complied with EU criteria which a PEPP must meet). If there were 15 PEPPs, each Foundation associated with a PEPP would receive (1.7m. divided by 15) euros, or 113,300 euros out of this particular box.

The 28.8 million euros has two destinations. First, in Germany think-tanks or “foundations” affiliated to political parties have long been subsidized by the state. 11.4 million euros out of the 28.4 million is to finance the establishment of such “foundations” at the pan-European level. I estimate that the grant to the UKIP-related foundation due to our MEPs’ adhesion to the pan-European party would be about £170,000.

Secondly, the balance of 17.4 million euros is to be added to MEPs allowances. I believe – and I am sure most members of UKIP also believe – that MEPs’ allowances are too high already. At any rate, any MEP who joins a pan-European political party would see his or her allowances topped up by over £20,000. Let me underline once again that the resulting expenditure would be for the purposes of the pan-European party as regulated by the European Parliament, not for UKIP in the United Kingdom.

What would 'the European Alliance' receive by becoming a PEPP?

I am assuming that UKIP has 11 MEPs and that it belongs to 'the European Alliance', which has met the EU's criteria for being 'a political party at the European level'. I am also assuming that the European Alliance has 32 MEPs as members.
The following box shows how much the European Alliance would receive.

Receipts from being one of 11 Europarties Receipts from having 32 out of 736 MEPs i.e., 1/11 of amounts in box above (2.61, 1.71) i.e., 32/736 of amounts in box above (14.79, 9.69)

PEPP's money, euros 237,000 643,000

Money for a Foundation, in euros 155,000 421,000

So the total amount for the European Alliance (i.e., for its MEPs and its Foundation) would be about 1.45m. euros, which - at the present exchange rate - is roughly £1.3m. This is why the 'yes' side say that - by joining a PEPP - UKIP would stop 'our enemies' receiving £1.3m.

So the figure of “£400,000 for us in UKIP” on the “yes” website is explained, more or less. If all MEPs join “the European Alliance” or whatever, a new think-tank – perhaps located in Brussels – would be given a grant of about £170,000 and MEPs would receive altogether another £230,000 or so in extra expenses allowances. Do you approve of these uses of money in the name of the political party to which you belong? Is the 28.8 million euros budget to be seen as an excellent use of resources or the squandering of taxpayers’ money by a loathsome Euro- elite?

UKIP’s (or – in fact – UKIP’s MEPs’) acceptance of this sort of bribe from our enemies would be a shocking and deplorable betrayal. The “yes” side may say that the Conservatives, Labour and the LibDems have already participated in “political parties at the European level” and taken the money. They might ask, “why should UKIP be any different?”. The answer – I would hope – is that the UK Independence Party stands for principle and conviction, and is therefore opposed to politicians’ boondoggles. Politicians in the Conservative, Labour and LibDem parties are tacky and selfish, and we shouldn’t and won’t copy them. Let Conservative, Labour and LibDem MEPs join the other pigs at the trough. UKIP must not take money from a set of institutions that we detest.

Let me reiterate that no extra money would be directed to UKIP headquarters, any of UKIP’s branches or UKIP regional accounts. MEPs would indeed have (yet more) on their allowances, but could spend it only for purposes approved by the European Parliament. And do I need to say that the European Parliament’s officials loathe what UKIP stands for?

Vote No to the pan-European party idea in the forthcoming ballot.

Professor Tim Congdon CBE
12th July, 2011

Receipts for UKIP's MEPs as members of a PEPP

The PEPP's MEPs would receive 880,000 euros (237,000 + 643,000), to be spent on
for purposes regulated by the European Parliament.

The Foundation would receive 576,000 euros (155,000 + 421,000).

UKIP's MEPs would receive 11/32 of the 880,000 euros, which is 303,000 euros.

The Foundation would receive - as a result of the 11 UKIP MEPs' membership of the PEPP - a sum equal to 11/32 of 576,000 euros, or 198,000 euros.

The total sum received by the MEPs for PEPP activities and by the Foundation as a result of UKIP's participation in the PEPP would be 501,000 euros, which - at an exchange rate of 1.15 - is £436,000. 

 
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 01291 - 62 65 62
of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com  
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com  
General Stuff: http://gl-w.blogspot.com  
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com  
TWITTER: Greg_LW
 

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

To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&

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!

Hi,

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:
CLICK HERE.

.
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

09-Apr-2011 - UKIP MEETING IN HERTFORDSHIRE!

09-Apr-2011 - UKIP MEETING IN HERTFORDSHIRE!
 
UKIP MEETING IN HERTFORDSHIRE!
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!!

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

 Hi,

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

GERARD BATTEN, UKIP MEP
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- http://www.ukipbroxbourne.org.uk e-mail; martinharveyonr@aol.com

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.

Name…………………………………………………………………………..
Address……………………………………………………………………….
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
&
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

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

Tuesday, 12 October 2010

Tim CONGDON Backs THE PETITION for an EU REFERENDUM

Tim CONGDON Backs THE PETITION for an EU REFERENDUM

20,000 - 30,000 copies of this magazine will be mailed out this week to activists across Britain, from the offices of Nikki Sinclaire MEP. 

The distribution had to be brought forward somewhat as this week Nikki Sinclaire is on secondment to The RAF on an Air Sea Rescue Course in Cornwall.

Once again she puts Farage & his fan club to shame. 

This year alone Sinclaire has done more practiaclly for the EUroRealist cause than Farage has done with all his squabbling MEPs and salaried praise singers since they were elected in June last year!

And don't forget to sign the petition: CLICK HERE

From the magazine:



Why we need a Referendum by Tim Congdon


Clear majorities of the British people want their country to leave the European Union.

A recent YouGov poll found that 47 per cent wanted the UK out of the EU, compared with 33 per cent who preferred to stay in. Bizarrely, the latest Eurobarometer of public attitudes (financed by the European Commission) had earlier demonstrated a similar result. It showed that 33 per cent of its UK respondents regarded the EU as “a bad thing”, while 29 per cent viewed it as a “a good thing”.

The current widespread opposition to the EU is hardly surprising, as EU interventions in our national life are now disrupting long established traditions, undermining revered institutions and damaging livelihoods. The Commission, the Council of Ministers and their secretariats have used the passage of the Lisbon Treaty last year as the pretext for further encroachments on the EU member states, including the UK.

The last few months have seen a media furore over the effects of the Working Time Directive on the efficiency of British medicine and the National Health Service.

For many decades junior doctors have acquired experience – the experience which is essential if they are to be real doctors and not parrots of the textbooks – by working very long hours in real-world, often life-or-death clinical settings. Now, because of the Working Time Directive, they are prevented by law from this practice.

With lives being put in jeopardy by an EU directive, the puzzle is not that almost half of British people want to leave the EU, but why a third still believe in staying in. More and more people are angry and resentful about how EU decisions are affecting them in their daily lives.

There is a growing discrepancy between popular hostility to the EU and the willingness of successive British governments to hand over so-called “competences” to EU control.

This discrepancy is dangerous. When people believe that politicians are out-of-touch and untrustworthy, and ignore what they want, the risk of civil disobedience increases. In a modern democracy politicians must respect the wishes of citizens and voters. The case for a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the EU is now overwhelming.

The 2009 Lisbon Treaty was undoubtedly a radical change in the constitutional arrangements of every EU member state, including the UK. All three of the main parties gave clear pledges in their manifestos at the 2005 general election to hold a referendum in the event of another big European constitutional upheaval.
Yet all three of them then judged that the Lisbon Treaty was not important enough to justify the holding of a referendum.

This is scandalous, an orchestrated insult to the intelligence of the British electorate. Britain must have a referendum on its membership of the European Union. That referendum needs to be held as soon as possible, to stop more damage being done to our traditions, our institutions and our way of life.
End of article.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 11 October 2010

C - UKIP, Roger KNAPMAN & Mike NATTRASS MEP SUPPORT THE PETITION

C - UKIP, Roger KNAPMAN & Mike NATTRASS MEP SUPPORT THE PETITION...


.
.





Clear majorities of the British people want their country to leave the European Union. 
A recent YouGov poll found that 47 per cent wanted the UK out of the EU, compared with 33 per cent who preferred to stay in. 
Bizarrely, the latest Eurobarometer of public attitudes (financed by the European Commission) had earlier demonstrated a similar result. It showed that 33 per cent of its UK respondents regarded the EU as “a bad thing”, while 29 per cent viewed it as a “a good thing”. 
The current widespread opposition to the EU is hardly surprising, as EU interventions in our national life are now disrupting longestablished traditions, undermining revered institutions and damaging livelihoods. 
The Commission, the Council of Ministers and their secretariats have used the passage of the Lisbon TreatyWorking Time Directive on the efficiency of British medicine and the National Health Service last year as the pretext for further encroachments on the EU member states, including the UK. The last few months have seen a media furore over the effects of the
For many decades junior doctors have acquired experience – the experience which is essential if they are to be real doctors and not parrots of the textbooks – by working very long hours in real-world, often life-or-death clinical settings. Now, because of the Working Time Directive, they are prevented by law from this practice. 
With lives being put in jeopardy by an EU directive, the puzzle is not that almost half of British people want to leave the EU, but why a third still believe in staying in. More and more people are angry and resentful about how EU decisions are affecting them in their daily lives. 
There is a growing discrepancy between popular hostility to the EU and the willingness of successive British governments to hand over so-called “competences” to EU control. 
This discrepancy is dangerous. When people believe that politicians are out-of-touch and untrustworthy, and ignore what they want, the risk of civil disobedience increases. In a modern democracy politicians must respect the wishes of citizens and voters. The case for a referendum on the UK’s continued membership of the EU is now overwhelming. 
The 2009 Lisbon Treaty was undoubtedly a radical change in the constitutional arrangements of every EU member state, including the UK. All three of the main parties gave clear pledges in their manifestos at the 2005 general election to hold a referendum in the event of another big European constitutional upheaval. 
Yet all three of them then judged that the Lisbon Treaty was not important enough to justify the holding of a referendum. 
This is scandalous, an orchestrated insult to the intelligence of the British electorate. Britain must have a referendum on its membership of the European Union.
That referendum needs to be held as soon as possible, to stop more damage being done to our traditions, our institutions and our way of life.
To sign The Petition Right Away:

Sunday, 10 October 2010

Tony SCHOFIELD's OPEN LETTER Supporting Tim CONGDON & Gerard BATTEN

Tony SCHOFIELD's OPEN LETTER Supporting Tim CONGDON & Gerard BATTEN

Dear Gerard,

I thank you for your letter of 24th September, announcing that you have decided to stand down in the UKIP leadership election and support Tim Congdon. Your action reflects credit on yourself.

I believe that the view expressed by yourself, and also by Tim Congdon, that the leadership of UKIP must be in the UK is correct. The MEP wing of UKIP has its own sphere of activity and can be useful as similar parties to UKIP are growing in other EU countries, but it must be incorporated into and directed by the national party in the UK.

As you know, up to 2001 the party was based either in my offices in London or in offices funded by myself when I was Party Secretary. I was also a substantial contributor to the risk-capital of UKIP to get the party started in its early years. However, after the election of UKIP MEPs in 1999, I immediately became aware that some of the new MEPs had different and unconstitutional ideas of the role of the MEPs in the party.

At this point I ceased any funding to the national party, but continued to contribute to your own and other campaigns in London and elsewhere.

If Tim Congdon is elected Leader and in accordance with the published agreement between you and him carries out 'a commitment for the party to abide by its own Constitution, with a fair and impartial application of the rules', I look forward to rejoining, and to injecting some funding into the national party. I would expect to see commitment and action by the MEPs to make substantial financial contributions to the national party.

The current political situation in the UK and the rest of the EU offers immense opportunities to UKIP with a wide field of action. However, the turnover of members and activists has been far too high over the last few years and is linked in most cases to lack of confidence in the constitutional behaviour of the party, its officers and executives. For progress to be made, this confidence must be restored.

Regards,

Anthony Scholefield
Enhanced by Zemanta

Wednesday, 6 October 2010

Tim CONGDON in The Telegraph 06-Oct-2010

Tim CONGDON in The Telegraph 06-Oct-2010
Hi,

a quick search on The Telegraph web site for >Tim CONGDON<
gave an interesting response today.

UKIP members may well not know Tim Congdon well as he has needed to Distance himself from The Farage Party not to be seen as just another lightweight on the make and the take and maintain his credibility as a world quoted Economist.

UKIP could do well to shed its image of a bunch of ill mannered racist clowns which clearly The Farage Party is - destined to bump along for ever more with 3-5% of the electorate, no say, no clout, no gravitas and ultimately to become - if not already - the holding pool for a few geriatric extremists who form Ther BNP in blazers teamed up with the political scum of EUrope in the EFD and a few wannabe rich without working youngsters desperately trying to climb on the Gravy Train.

This is THE LAST chance for UKIP to ever be taken seriously.

17 years of Farage style and we are ever deeper in the EU talking of forming a Pan EU Political Party with any trash that will be prepared to be associated so as to GET MORE MONEY but for whom?
 
Results 1 - 3 of about 213

Dangerous Defeatism is taking hold among America's economic elites ...

September 5 2010 | By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard | Finance
Goldilocks has played a trick on America. Growth is not warm enough to prevent hard-core unemployment climbing to post-war highs and sticking at levels that corrode the body politic, but not yet cold enough to overcome the fierce resistance of the Fed's regional hawks for a fresh blast of stimulus.

US Treasury yields fall to record low on Fed's 'QE lite' plan ...

August 3 2010 | Ambrose Evans-Pritchard | Finance
Yields on short-term US Treasury debt have fallen to the lowest in history on mounting expectations of extra stimulus from the Federal Reserve.

Fed's volte face sends the dollar tumbling

July 15 2010 | Ambrose Evans-Pritchard | Finance
Rarely before have a few coded words in the minutes of the US Federal Reserve caused such an upheaval in the global currency system, or such a sudden flight from the dollar.
Results 1 - 10 of about 170

Tim Congdon: vicious fiscal consolidation doesn't need to kill UK ...

June 11 2010 | Jeremy Warner | Finance
Tim Congdon, keeper of the monetarist faith, is always good value and was on characteristically controversial form for a lunch at the centre right think tank Reform this week. Here’s just a taste of his remarks. The Keynesian idea that you can raise economic activity by increasing the Budget deficit is jus

Dangerous Defeatism is taking hold among America's economic elites ...

September 5 2010 | By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard | Finance
Goldilocks has played a trick on America. Growth is not warm enough to prevent hard-core unemployment climbing to post-war highs and sticking at levels that corrode the body politic, but not yet cold enough to overcome the fierce resistance of the Fed's regional hawks for a fresh blast of stimulus.

US money supply plunges at 1930s pace as Obama eyes fresh stimulus ...

May 26 2010 | By Ambrose Evans-Pritchard | Finance
The M3 money supply in the United States is contracting at an accelerating rate that now matches the average decline seen from 1929 to 1933, despite near zero interest rates and the biggest fiscal blitz in history.

Leading economists tell us what the future holds

June 5 2010 | By Edmund Conway | Finance
In an exclusive Sunday Telegraph survey, 25 top economists give their opinions on the way ahead.

Economists' survey of the UK: what's the ideal proportion of ...

June 9 2010 | Finance
The Telegraph is publishing the full responses to our Economic Survey, so that you can decide for yourself where we’re heading. We asked the 25 economists ten questions.

Regulators' determination to punish the banks is a punishment for ...

May 27 2010 | By Tim Congdon | Finance
What ails the world economy? Why are governments and central banks having so much difficulty in restoring the above-trend output growth which would constitute a genuine recovery?

Regulators' desire to punish the banks is a punishment for all ...

May 27 2010 | By Tim Congdon | Finance
What ails the world economy? Why are governments and central banks having so much difficulty in restoring the above-trend output growth which would constitute a genuine recovery?

Inflation 'a greater risk to Britain than deflation'

June 6 2010 | By Edmund Conway and Angela Monaghan | Finance
Inflation is a greater risk to the British economy than deflation, a majority of economists polled by The Daily Telegraph have said.

Euro 'will be dead in five years'

June 5 2010 | By Edmund Conway | Finance
The euro will have broken up before the end of this Parliamentary term, according to the bulk of economists taking part in a wide-ranging economic survey for The Sunday Telegraph.

Fed's volte face sends the dollar tumbling

July 15 2010 | Ambrose Evans-Pritchard | Finance
Rarely before have a few coded words in the minutes of the US Federal Reserve caused such an upheaval in the global currency system, or such a sudden flight from the dollar.


Enhanced by Zemanta

Monday, 13 September 2010

The Talking Clock interviews Tim Congdon

The Talking Clock interviews Tim Congdon

Monday, 13 September 2010

 

UKIP Leadership Special: The Talking Clock interviews Tim Congdon - EXCLUSIVE!


As the race for the UKIP leadership gets under way, The Talking Clock is proud to assist UKIP members in their decision - and inform the wider public about the characters involed in the race to lead Britain's fourth biggest party - through a very special interview series.
We invited all of the leadership hopefuls to spell out, through The Talking Clock, their vision for the party and where they stand on a number of issues of interest to our readership.
Today, we present for you, our EXCLUSIVE interview with Tim Congdon.


Transcript:
Note - in order to present a level playing field, this is a verbatim transcript. It has not been tidied to erase speech hesitations and is as accurate a record of every word as is possible.


So, the first obvious question then is why do you want to be leader of UKIP?
I am appalled at the betrayal of our rights, our constitution, in many ways our way of life by a political elite – a political class, all the three main parties over the last forty years. Britain’s independence as a nation isn’t quite extinguished, but it’s been very much reduced. It affects our living standards, it affects our civil liberties, it affects our way of life and I want my country back and – by becoming leader of UKIP – I can make my contribution to that cause.


And, in that vein, what would you say are the main things that you would offer to the party if you were to win the leadership race?
I’d emphasise three things. The first thing is that I want to be leader of the United Kingdom Independence Party in the United Kingdom. I promise to spend over ninety percent of my time in the UK – most of that probably in London. There is a huge organisational job to do in this country. I don’t want to be distracted by being an MEP in Brussels or Strasbourg.
The second thing I bring is – since it is a very important organisational job – I bring organisational skills. I built up a business from scratch from a hundred pounds to employing lots of people, a turnover of about four million pounds and I have skills in terms of contacts with the press, of organising mailing lists and so on, because I had to do it before for my own businesses and so on – so I have organisational skills.
Then the final point is that I have been an economist for most of my career. I was on the Treasury Panel in the mid-1990s – a very good period, by the way, for the British economy when I was advising British Government and I would bring UKIP the best economist in British politics and actually, by the way, most people wouldn’t dispute that.


How prepared are you for the media scrutiny that the leadership role would place you under?
Well in terms of the… going on press conferences, going on media - radio, television, I’ve done that already. Although I have only – on the Treasury Panel – that was my only formal public position, if you like, I’ve been involved in British public debates for over thirty years in various ways so it wouldn’t be very new to me. I’ve been, for example, on Andrew Neil’s programme, I mean, I know a lot of journalists.
You then say what about media scrutiny? My private life, my financial affairs are totally blameless. I have nothing whatsoever to be ashamed of and I’m not bothered about that at all.


So, is the UKIP leadership election something purely for UKIP members to be interested in or can you see interest in the wider electorate in the leadership race?
Well obviously, it’s nicer if there’s wider interest. I think, if we’re realistic, that we had a bit over three percent of the national vote – that’s a million people, obviously the interest is probably more like two or three million people at least, so yes – I hope there is wider interest but, in practise, it’s very much going to be party membership as such so we’re talking about a few thousand people. I wish it were more, but there we are.


Have you been happy with the direction UKIP has been heading in and what do you think UKIP has done well so far?
Well, UKIP has been an extraordinary development in that it didn’t exist twenty years ago and it’s now blossomed into a party with an organisational structure and capturing almost a million votes in the General Election – that is a fantastic achievement. Having said that, this is… because of… an attack, it’s an attack on our country from, from Europe with which – to be frank – we have both historical friendships and also historical antagonisms and, given that this is a major attack on our nation we should have done better, in my opinion, and I think that there has been wonderful organisation at the branch level, at the regional level mostly on a voluntary basis and those people need encouragement and help – often strokes of inspiration. But having said all that, there is a lot to be done organisationally in this country, in the United Kingdom itself, to get our message over.
There has been too much distraction of effort by the fact that we have twelve or so MEPs in the European Parliament and then the whole distraction because of all sorts of problems they have with their monies, expenses, exactly what they’re supposed to be doing, all the rest of it – I want to be leader of UKIP in this country, concentrating on this country, pursuing the battle here.


So, going forward then, what changes would you like to see in the UKIP focus?
Okay, the first thing is that we must have a London office. Now, of course, this [interview] is being held in what is, in a sense, a London office but it’s also – of course, the European Community’s office in London. This is not supposed to be a party political office. We must have an office in London from which we can do party political things without any question. That requires a bit of money.
I will help the financing of the office if I become leader. I will obviously need to be involved with fundraising. I know a few people, I can’t make any promises but I think that they would regard me as a credible and important public figure. We would need to organise journalists, press releases, press lists, parties – all these things must be done, I’m afraid I’m not implying anything against the regions – but essentially in London. So, you know, that is where I think we’ve been falling down – there’s more to be done in the regions, more to be done in the branches, more to be done to build up the membership – all these things need work. But, there we are, I think I’ve answered the question.


So, what do you think of the way UKIP is portrayed in the media and do you think you can improve our image and depth of coverage in the corporate media and, if so, how?
The media image is not very good and we need to raise our game. We need to have quality research documents. We need to have constant contact with journalists. We need to make sure that anything unfortunate in our private lives, whatever, is kept out of the – I say that, I’m not worried at all myself but – you know… the important thing is publicity, you know – the oxygen of publicity, yes, and in particular good publicity. We want favourable comments in the press to what we believe in for the future of our country and favourable comments to the things that we write and we say.
And can I just say before I finish on this question that I, myself, have built up a research business where media contact and media ‘passing on the message’ was very important and what I did was highly respected and remains so.


So, has a finite level for potential UKIP electoral support been reached and, if not, how would you envisage that we could excite and energise the public to vote positively…
We are only scratching the surface. The opinion polls are showing that more people now regard the European Union – our membership of the European Union – as a bad thing than a good thing. The opinion polls are showing that, maybe, fifty-five percent of people in Britain want us to leave the European Union, full stop. They’re showing eighty percent of us want to change our relationship with the European Union, so that it’s mostly an economic matter not a political union.
We have overwhelming public support for what we believe in. It’s true that there are other issues that people regard as important, okay, and so they don’t vote for us because they regard us as – you know – a kind of amateur political party which has focussed in on one issue. I, by the way in saying that, I don’t mean any disrespect to the existing, the amount of hard work people do but that’s – I’m afraid – how they regard us. So we are only scratching the surface.
The obvious way of showing this, of course, is the General Elections we get a bit over three percent; in the European election, we get sixteen, seventeen percent. There is huge potential support that we would have if we have credibility and also, by the way, if the governing party or parties are unpopular and I think our great opportunity is going to be in 2014 when I think it’s quite possible that we will vote more – with good leadership, with good publicity, with hard work in the United Kingdom, we will get a higher share of the vote than any other political party and that could transform British politics, that could get us out of the European Union.


So what would you like to see the local UKIP branches do differently and what do you think they are doing well?
I think it’s… I think they do a wonderful job in the sense that it’s all voluntary, people have got their own lives, they’ve got errr… you know, many people running businesses and so on. What I’ve found from, you know, talking around the party is that… what normally causes somebody to join UKIP and then to support it continually is that they have seen the European Union affecting them in their daily lives and there’s a whole host of things that are relevant here but obviously, it’s fisheries, it’s farming, mad cow disease, the way we were treated in 1997, 1996/97 on mad cow disease, it’s – it’s things like, like regulation that’s expensive and penalises us in markets outside the EU, it’s something like the two lads who’ve just been in a Hungarian prison, it’s something that affects them directly and they see an immediate impact and they then say we don’t want the European Union at all – full stop – and then they join UKIP and I think those kind of people, in other words they’re still voluntary, so what I want is more branch meetings, I want the centre suggesting the topics of branch meetings to the branches, I want letters from the party leader to the branch chairmen, county chairmen, regional organisers, saying ‘I want these meetings this year, please’ you know, ‘can you please raise some funds for yourselves’ – I’m not suggesting the money should come from the centre at all. I want a lot of money built up in the branch, in the constituency branch, bank accounts between now and 2014 and 2015. We need to do this through, as I said, a number of branch meetings, and then all the help that we can provide centrally in terms of the content of those meetings, in terms of the contents, it’s partly speakers, it’s partly publications, it’s partly things like videos of what we had at the party conference. Then also we must try and raise the membership of the party and – you know – I think that we’ve had, through the list as it were, something like fifty thousand people but the current membership bag is only about ten. We must do our best to get those people back and – you know – we have got a very good cause, a very important cause so, again it’s a matter of finding money, but I would like to have adverts in the – start off with where we can afford it, but adverts in the local papers initially, probably – join UKIP – there’ll be some revenue from them joining UKIP so the ads can pay for themselves. There’s various things – a lot of things to do.


What role does UKIP’s youth wing, Young Independence, play in your vision for the party?
It’s very important to catch people young. I would say the kind of things that I’ve just been talking about for the branches also apply for the youth wing. It’s important also in universities – some extent in schools – particularly in sixth forms, particularly in universities, that we should have people who – almost kind of a list actually – of potential contributors to, you know, Oxford Union, Cambridge Union, Leeds Union debates – alright? I know Nigel Farage does this but, you know, there are other people, should all be involved in contributing to these debates at the student union level. Otherwise, I think the agenda is pretty much the same as for the branches. It’s giving them ideas for meetings, supporting and so on.


As you obviously know, polls show that that the majority are opposed to or are to some extent unhappy at our relationship with the European Union. But if Parliament is supposed to represent the will of the people, how did we get here?
I think there’s two things. One thing, it’s corruption – that there is a separate class of people who are politicians. They don’t have money of their own. They therefore regard politics as a career. They failed to get into Westminster Parliament, there are other jobs around. There are jobs to some extent in this country and there are jobs in the European Union and the European Union is just another job. So, certainly at the end of your career, you know, to become a Commissioner, you’ve then have got various powers and patronage - it’s another job but it’s a sort of, you know, quite a nice job, you know, a lot of flunkies around, nice cars and life’s rather fun, yeah? So these people have become corrupt.
The second reason, may amaze you, is laziness. You know, what the job, the life of a Minister is incredibly pampered. You have – I’ve got many friends who have been through this life – you actually have… (aside)… a diary secretary, you have a car, you have your papers, you have, you know, all the red boxes that you have to read and decide what to do – the civil servants initiate, you say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ – by the way, if you reach a decision they don’t like they steer you, they control what you do. The bureaucracy doesn’t want democracy, the bureaucracy wants to control the politicians and, bit by bit, it’s the European bureaucracy has taken control of more and more of the European agenda, the European agenda has infiltrated national life and so now you have a situation where directives, regulations essentially coming from the European democracy become law in our country without any, without any control by our own politicians, without any control by our own Parliament and that disgusting state of affairs it arises because these politicians are pampered and lazy, they aren’t prepared to fight with and quarrel with their bureaucrats and say ‘you do what I want to do and you obey my orders…’ because actually, actually, they depend on the bureaucrats for their own pampered, soft way of life.


So, what are the alternatives away from the European Union – if we got sovereignty tomorrow, what are the alternatives for Britain and trade?
Can I just say Britain was a self-respecting, a very proud nation for centuries until 1972. So you ask… the answers there, you know – we had a past we are proud of so we don’t have to belong to this wretched thing. New Zealand doesn’t belong to the European Union! Australia doesn’t belong to the European Union! Canada doesn’t belong to the European Union! Does that mean life doesn’t go on in New Zealand, Canada? Does that mean that people are not rich and prosperous and hard-working and protected by lots of basic rights including the right to proper justice? Oh, come on! We don’t have to belong to the European Union at all! What a joke! Stupid nonsense!


Some detractors of UKIP label the party as a “one trick pony” and that’s despite a very comprehensive manifesto at the last General Election. So, imagine that you were to win the leadership, what would be the first thing you would put in a UKIP manifesto?
Well the first thing is, of course, withdrawal and that just isn’t something for negotiation – that’s completely straightforward. The question then is how much other things do we want in there? I think we should limit the length of the manifesto to fifteen thousand words, ideally keep it to ten. And if we have particular issues which are very important such as about the European Arrest Warrant, civil liberties and so on, then that might have a larger section, say fifteen hundred words.
Also, about things like immigration, gypsy encampments and so on, also very important and immigration from the European Union – difficult controlling it. Again, you might want to say a thousand words for that. But, but the – you know, that’s for a meeting at the start – ‘that’s the word budget, that’s how many words you can have, that’s it’. And then if there are things we want to develop – you know, say I have a long policy statement on immigration, fine. Then we just put, on the website, a hypertext link, ‘immigration’, bash through and there you get the ten thousand word, fifteen thousand word document explaining, justifying, defending the immigration policy.


Because I know the kind of people who I see showing interest in UKIP from the internet, something that comes up an awful lot is the West Lothian Question. So, do you think the West Lothian Question requires an answer?
My own view about this is that this is a much larger topic and I think the United Kingdom would be a far stronger nation if we had a simple federal structure in which Scotland, Wales, England and Northern Ireland were the four states in a federation. And with a lot of devolution to the, you know, the Scots have already got health, education, and so on, it continues – but I would actually… and so, there would, of course, be a national Parliament and at the national Parliament some things decided nationally but I would want the English Parliament - actually, there would be the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, it’s not the Assembly anymore – and the… and they would actually decide those certain set of issues for England, yeah.


Is the UK a police state?
I think it’s horrifying that question could even be asked. You know, this is a nation that pioneered the ideas of freedom from arbitrary arrest, the idea of the rule of law, the idea of jury trial, the idea of – you know – no imprisonment without clear evidence and so it’s horrifying this question could even be asked and I think that we have surrendered far too much to essentially a foreign power, actually, which is what the European Union is really. We have surrendered far too much of our basic freedoms and we’ve moved much too far in the direction of a rather unpleasant European police state. The notion that the planning of European justice system can be in the hands of somebody who was a member of the Hungarian Communist Party is terrifying.


And just one light-hearted question to finish on. The result of the leadership ballot is announced on November 5th. Would you like to comment on the significance of that date?
Oh heavens! I hadn’t really thought of it as a… but this was a… James the First of England, James the Sixth of Scotland was a disappointment to the Catholics because he clearly believed in the Protestant succession, something that Queen Elizabeth had sorted out and, ummm, I think it’s a wonderful day to choose for the result of the leadership ballot and I will, if I, well, if I become leader, when I become leader I would actually want to steer the contents of any press release towards reference to the Gunpowder Plot and I think – there we are – sorry it’s not funny!



We would like to thank our very special UKIP contact for helping to make this possible. We won't embarrass them by naming them - they know who they are. Thank you!
To view the original article CLICK HERE
Enhanced by Zemanta