Members & staff of UKIP past & present. Committed to reforming the party by exposing the corruption and dishonesty that lies at its heart, in the hope of making it fit for purpose.
Only by removing Nigel Farage and his sycophants on the NEC can we save UKIP from electoral oblivion.
It is now public knowledge that several UKIP MEPs - including Nigel Farage - secretly signed up to a second EU pension fund. See: LINK
This story is not going to go away. Several journalists are now gathering information on this scandal. Farage can expect a VERY rough ride from now until to the General Election!
We sincerely hope that Farage's opponents in Buckingham make the most of this opportunity to expose this spiv for what he is - a sickening hypocrite and a man more than than happy to stick his snout in the EU trough.
From New Europe:
Our recent article, "MEPs spending spree forces payback, but the names are being kept secret" (see full article below), disclosed that unnamed MEPs have handed back €3.4 million to Parliament and that the secretive second pension scheme is in financial trouble among other related issues. Mr Juame Duch Guillot, Spokesperson for the European Parliament, has written to the newspaper requesting a clarification of the following points:
•The vast majority of the repayments are simply a part of the normal operation of the system... this is a routine accounting exercise and does not indicate any administrative failings, still less any wrongdoing".
•Where there are doubts about any payments, Parliament's services always ask for any additional details requires. If there is reason to suspect wrongdoing Parliament can and does refer the matter to OLAF
•Parliament's rules have, since the 2009 elections, have forbidden the employment of close relations, albeit with a transitional period for those individuals already employed.
•The secondary pension scheme effectively closed at the end of the previous Parliamentary term and now only exists to meet its existing obligations.
•Parliament is not "bailing out"the fund: it has taken steps to address this situation, raising the retirement age and reducing options for withdrawing from the scheme, precisely to avoid the situation where the scheme would need to be "bailed out" by taxpayers.
•The administrators of the scheme have already made clear that reports the the scheme has invested in schemes linked with Bernard Madoff are entirely false.
Richard Balfe, the ex-MEP who is leading a court battle to halt reforms to the pension scheme, has been seen in the Parliament pensions office this week and is described as being unhappy with the naming of four UK Conservative MEPs who are fighting the case alongside him. He believes that this is unfairly singling out his party.
Mr Balfe may well be correct and the MEPs involved in the case appear to come from a cross-section of European politics. If he wishes to prove that this is the case, he is more than welcome to provide us with the full names of all the MEPs fighting the reforms with him.
• In Mr. Duch Guillot's letter, it is stated that the €3.4 million that has been repaid so far, is just normal accounting practice. This amount appears to be significantly higher than in previous years. Why this might be? As the figure only represents monies that have been actually repaid, what amount was requested to be repaid, but has not yet been received, and how many MEPs are involved?
• It was also stated that when doubt arises, the Parliament services request further information. How many MEPs has such further information been requested from? What has been the response?
• It is stated that the Parliament can and does refer MEPs to OLAF. How many MEPs have been referred to OLAF in the last two parliamentary terms? Tom Wise MEP was not referred to OLAF. Why not? Would the same course of action be taken if a similar situation arose again?
• The pension fund had a reported shortfall of €125 million. This is an old figure, what is the current shortfall? Mr Duch Guillot also makes clear that the Parliament is taking measures to reduce liabilities in the pension scheme. By how much would the shortfall will be reduced if these measures are implemented? It is widely believed that the cost saving measures will not eradicate the deficit. If this is the case, where will the rest of the money come from? If the court case goes against the Parliament, how will it prevent a "bail out" by the European taxpayer?
In the EU, the Parliament's role is to represent the public, in an open and transparent way. We are confident that all these questions will be fully answered.