Prof. Tim CONGDON’s Latest eMail re: The EU

Prof. Tim CONGDON’s Latest eMail re: The EU
.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU  

. 

Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 

their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

Prof. Tim CONGDON’s Latest eMail re: The EU!
Though what his opinion will be tommorow is anybody’s guess based on his track record of support and condemnation of UKIP!
It is hard to consider his comments as very reliable when one reads his first sentence, which would seem to contradict the first sentence of para. 2!
Then again anyone who believes that UKIP did well must be seen with some scepticism but I do suggest you overlook this idiocy and read on where he becomes a little more coherent!
.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

 

just for the record and in case you are not on the mailing list of the academic theorist Prof. Tim Condon who has some interesting opinions on economics and a very variable view on UKIP – which seems to change on an almost daily basis on the one hand seeking to lead the party, despite very poor judgement of supporters and assistants! Then we see the poor chap denouncing the party and its behaviour only to see him flip flop back within hours – Not a very reliable lead to follow!
All the same here is the most recent eMail I have received, from Tim Congdon:

From: Timothy Congdon [mailto:timcongdon@btconnect.com]
Sent: 08 May 2012 10:01
Subject: Tim Congdon’s latest e-mail

Dear fellow members of UKIP (and others concerned about the UK’s relationship with the EU),

UKIP’s performance in last week’s local government elections was excellent news. Even better are the signs that the Conservative/LibDem coalition is fracturing and that Cast-Iron Cameron’s days as Prime Minister are numbered. Although a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU has been inevitable for some time, the timing has been murky and uncertain. The signposts towards the referendum are now becoming easier to read through the political fog.

I don’t have much to say about UKIP’s success in the 2012 local government elections except “well done, all round”. In today’s e-mail I want to focus on developments in the Conservative/LibDem coalition, as they are likely to have huge implications for UKIP in the next three years.

Cameron has been unpopular with Conservative Party constituency associations, and traditional Conservative Party members and party activists, from day one of his premiership. He failed to score a 2010 general election win despite being faced by a wide open goal, with that goal wide open because of Labour’s disastrous handling of the economy. (George Osborne was one of the most pathetic Shadow Chancellors of all time.) But the Conservative Party is inherently very loyal, at least until it can see that the next general election will be lost under the current leadership. It then finds ways to dump the leader. The message from the local election results is that Cameron’s “modernization” of the Conservative Party has failed,  because it has alienated a big bloc of the electorate, perhaps more than 10% of voters. UKIP’s near-15% score in those wards it contested is the clearest evidence of Cameron’s mistake.

Boris Johnson went to the same school as Cameron and they are personally on amicable terms. (I sat next to Boris at a dinner in September 2005 and let him know my contempt for Cameron, which already at that stage was well-developed. Boris defended him vigorously. [I had been a sporadic contributor to The Spectator for many years, and Boris was then still editor of The Spectator.]) But Boris is a politician, and politics is politics. The key event here was on 25^th March, when the People’s Pledge announced that Boris had signed the document while campaigning in Romford with the very Eurosceptic Andrew Rosindell MP. (To remind, the People’s Pledge is a commitment to support a referendum on the UK’s membership of the EU.)

It is unclear whether Boris could quit the London Mayoralty (which in principle lasts four years), find an empty, recently vacated and safe Conservative seat before 2015 (not easy in present circumstances), and challenge Cameron and/or fight in a Conservative leadership contest. Sure, it is entirely plausible that the Coalition would be massacred in the 2015 general election if Cameron and Clegg were to stay “in charge” (in charge!) until then, and that Boris would then take over as Conservative leader. But, in all probability, Cameron and Clegg will be removed in the next year or two, and the problem is then to find a leader – possibly an interim leader – until Boris takes over. (Although once a new leader is there, Boris may not have a look in.)

In this context I find it fascinating that David Davis and John Redwood are reported – I assume reliably – to be working together on an “alternative Queen’s Speech”. The news has a double significance. First, the traditional “conservative” (small “c”), so-called “right-wing” elements in the party dominate the membership outside Parliament. Right-wing Eurosceptics are also in fact, despite their inarticulacy and ineffectiveness, a majority of Conservative MPs. They have become so angry that they are at last finding their voice. Secondly, collaboration between Davis and Redwood is a major surprise. These two have spent most of the last 15 years loathing each other and have been politically at cross-purposes. (I believe that Redwood voted for Cameron in the 2005 leadership election, although I am open to correction. Bill Cash – a staunch Eurosceptic – certainly did.)

No one can predict exactly how events will play out in the next three to five years. But – in my judgement – we now have greater clarity on

1. The likely toppling of Cameron (and Osborne presumably) by his own party, probably ahead of – and perhaps well ahead of – the 2015 general election, and
2. The virtual certainty that the British people will be consulted in a referendum on EU membership in a timeframe (say, the next five years) for which UKIP must start planning.

I should emphasize that these are only my personal assessments and in no way do they have any official status in UKIP. However, it is very much my view that UKIP must now think actively about what we can do to ensure that the referendum delivers the result in which every party member believes. In party political terms, the “no to the EU” referendum campaign must be driven and dominated by UKIP, by people who really believe what they are saying, not by Tories or the small number of dissident anti-EU Labour supporters.

………………………….

Now from the sublime to the humdrum. Attached are a couple of recent pieces of work, which may be of interest to party members. One is my latest column for Standpoint, on the Bradford West by-election result; the second is a contribution to the latest Campaign for a Referendum circular.

With best wishes,  

 Tim Congdon

. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 

 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) .

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future 

&

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Alternate & Future Site: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.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 .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU  

Related articles

• Prof. Tim CONGDON's Latest eMail re: The EU

  ---

• The UKIP Civil War continues with Tim Condon etc. (tcongdon.blogspot.com)
• UKIP’s Catastrophic Results are being spun by “Comical Alis” (ukip-vs-eukip.com)
• UKIP Expecting Catastrophic Domestic Election Results (ukip-vs-eukip.com)
• UKIP’s EU Funded Hypocricy (ukip-vs-eukip.com)
• UKIP’s Catastrophic Hubris & Dishonesty (ukip-vs-eukip.com)
• Derek Clark UKIP MEP Disbands Committee to cover his lies! (ukip-vs-eukip.com)
• Gawain Towler drags UKIP into his gutter (ukip-vs-eukip.com)
• UKIP Catastrophically fulfills predicted results! (ukip-vs-eukip.com)
• First she came for the Homosexuals & now she has come for the Muslims! (ukip-vs-eukip.com)
• I Believe UKIP IS Anti Homosexual (ukip-vs-eukip.com)
• Conservative Home Over Eggs the UKIP threat … (ukip-vs-eukip.com)

The UKIP Civil War continues with Tim Condon etc.

The UKIP Civil War continues with Tim Condon etc.
.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

&amp; Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&amp;

To Leave-The-EU  

. 
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 

their anti UKIP claque in POWER &amp; the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

The UKIP Civil War continues with Prof. Tim Condon one time UKIP Leadership contender, 'insider' and member!

Michael Foulston, UKIP Branch Chairman 

& they are NOT alone!
.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.
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,                                                                                                                                              12^th 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, 17^th 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!
. .

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&amp;

Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to

Reclaim YOUR Future 

&amp;

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate) .

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future 

&amp;

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 - 528 337

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com  
DO MAKE USE of LINKS &amp; &gt;Right Side Bar&lt;
 Also:

Details &amp; 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 .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

&amp; Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide of OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN &amp; To Leave-The-EU  

Related articles

• #0709* - Gerard Batten EFD & UKIP MEP Racist it seems! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0744* - UKIP Loses Another Councillor (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0691* - it Seems UK Public don't trust UKIP & Tories CAN'T be trusted! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0703* - UKIP - BATTEN - Corruption & The House of Lords! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0695* - Steve ALLISON Seems distanced from UKIP! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0736* - Unlike UKIP MEPs Sinclaire Publishes Auditted Accounts (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0708* - An interesting reflection on UKIP! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0690B* - An Update of Facts & Opinions re.: UKIP Leadership (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0737* - Gerard BATTEN is Clearly Unfit for Purpose as a UKIP MEP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0735* - Sinclaire serves Britain whilst Batten & UKIP serve themselves! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0743* - Chris HUDSON elected by a clear majority & UKIP corruption (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0700* - A Measure of UKIP UKIP London's Lack of Ethics it seems! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0739* - Are Purchased Honours for UKIP an Embarrassment? (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0701* - OF/2011/10/17 OLAF Investigation is interesting for UKIP! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0702* - Mike NATTRASS & The Sunday Times + PEARSON'S HoL BILL (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)

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. 
 

LEAVE-THE-EU

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 .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide
of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU 

Related articles

• #0574* - Gerard BATTEN's Views on Joining A PEPP (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0573* - Birmingham UKIP PEPP YES/NO DEBATE (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• IS THIS PEPP STILL LEGITIMATE? 11-Jul-2011 (efd-eu.blogspot.com)
• IS THIS PEPP STILL LEGITIMATE? 11-Jul-2011 (eualliance.blogspot.com)
• #0586* - Stuart AGNEW NFU MEP Tries To Justify His Dishonesty (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• APRIL - Tim CONGDON - 'No' to a Pan-European Party (tcongdon.blogspot.com)
• #0529* - UKIP PEPP Debate Was Insultingly Amateur & Crassly Illinformed! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0577* - Prostituting UKIP for a Printer!! (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0414* - UKIP MAY FIND ITSELF DISADVANTAGED by PEPPs (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0534* - BAROSSO Admits PEPPs Are An EU AIM (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)
• #0580* - MORE EU CORRUPTION & UKIP Members Betrayed (ukip-vs-eukip.blogspot.com)

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

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

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

Hi,

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


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

UKIP STILL HAVE NOT LEARNED LIES DON'T PAY!

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

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

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

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

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

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

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

Ms. Bookers comments are, as ever, both reasoned and substantiated:
Geoffrey, to clarify:

When trying to check the authenticity of the Tim Congdon email, I found it did not appear on Michael Heaver's blog as stated by skeptyk in post #1 of this thread. 

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

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

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

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

One of the google references revealed enough of Michael Heaver's 12 May post to show that he was definitely linking Tim Congdon's comments with what he called "the small isolated group of members who are calling for a leadership challenge". See http://www.britishblogs.co.uk/categories/nigel-farage/

quote

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

ends

Skeptyk continues the email in post #1. 

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

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

If this conclusion is incorrect, Michael Heaver should publish the email in its entirety, with date, title and name of recipient so that we can see it in context and check its authenticity.

The balance of the CLAIMED comment of Tim Congdon, as claimed by Michael Heavers and selectively quoted, as Barbara Booker states, was posted on this blog. CLICK HERE

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

For the original of the article above CLICK HERE

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

The TWO letters are claimed to be as follows:

 

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

Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2011 10:33 PM
Subject: Fw:

REDACTED,

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

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

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

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

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

rgds,

Tim

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

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

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

REDACTED,

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

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

You may forward this to whomever you please

rgds,

Tim

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

Wherein he stated:

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

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

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

#08 Middle Street, Chepstow, NP16 5ET, Monmouthshire, United Kingdoms.

tel: 01291 - 62 65 62

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

on: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com