About us

My photo
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. SEE: http://juniusonukip.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/a-statement-re-junius.html

Thursday, 8 September 2011

UKIP: Nikki Sinclaire, Mike Nattrass and Trevor Colman deliver petition to Number 10

Today, September 8th, Nikki Sinclaire, Mike Nattrass, and Trevor Colman delivered a petition of over 100,000 signatures to 10 Downing Street. Whilst the official line is that there can be no referendum on our membership of the EU, the MEPs have effectively pushed number 10 into a corner, and have forced them to accept the petition. The question being asked is "Why could Farage's UKIP not acheive this?".

UKIP's Independence & Democracy Group in the European parliament spent some £300k on a referendum petition that failed to materialise (this expenditure is currently subject to an OLAF investigation). Sinclaire, Nattrass, and Colman, from their own parliamentary budgets, and also from their own pockets, have made this happen without any financial help from UKIP, or any parliamentary group. Why could the other UKIP MEPs not do this?

Why is it that only the 3 MEPs who have left Farage's extreme-right EFD group are the only ones who can actually acheive anything?

Why is it that only these 3 MEPs seem to have access to funding to acheive what UKIP was supposedly elected to acheive?

Where does the EFD's money go?

Why have the UKIP MEPs in the EFD group seemingly given up any pretence at trying to get Britain out of the EU?

The 3 MEPs will be accompanied to Downing Street by a number of UK MPs, including prominent eurosceptics Kate Hoey and Austin Mitchell, and the Deputy leader of the DUP, Nigel Dodds. Why has Farage's UKIP never been able to attract such serious politicians or to mobilise cross-party support?

The 3 MEPs who have left the EFD group have all donated significant sums to UKIP, whereas Farage appears to have given nothing. Why is this?

The 3 MEPs who have left the EFD group regularly finance initiatives from their own pockets. Why then does Nigel Farage allegedly claim travelling expenses within the UK from the party?

The 3 MEPs who have left the EFD group fund their UK offices from their £4000 + per month general expenditure allowance. Nigel Farage receives a free office in the UK. Where does his £4000, for which he does not have to account, go to? He was known to have been topping up his pension from this budget during the previous two parliaments. Is he still doing this?

The petition for a referendum on Britain's membership of the EU has attracted huge media attention. Why is Farage's UKIP obsessed with conspiracy theories and climate change denial? How do these pointless diversions get us out of the EU?

Are the climate change deniers within the party receiving money, possibly via an NGO, to spout their nonsense? The Heartland Institute, with which Monckton is involved as a "Global Warming Expert", has certainly received funding from the oil industry. Are UKIP MEPs receiving cash in return for making speeches that deny the contribution of burning fossil fuels to global warming?

Why does Farage tolerate Monckton's lies about being a member of the House of Lords? Is it possible that the Heartland Institute might be a conduit for oil company funding?

The Competitive Enterprise Institute, a leading denier of Global warming, has received significant funds from Exxon Mobil. Why has the CEI's Chris Horner often been seen in the company of UKIP MEPs? The CEI was also funded by Phillip Morris Tobacco in order to spread doubt on the effects of passive smoking. Why did Godfrey Bloom try to organise a conference at which the negative effects of passive smoking were denied? The conference was banned by the European Parliament after it was discovered that tobacco industry money was behind the organising body.

We hope that UKIP MEPs are above the corruption that is so rampant in politics, but it does appear that there are some serious questions to be asked.


Paul Masters said...

Congratulations on a great job with the petition.

Such a shame that your success is marred by the sweeping assumptions you make on climate change. I make the following points:

1) Calling someone who challenges man-made global warming a climate change denier is wrong. Climate has never been static and has always been changing since day one. Monckton knows this fundamental, you should too.
2) Ad hominem attacks are no substitute for lack of real scientific evidence on man-made global warming. Referring to those demanding good scientific evidence instead of a politically engineered consensus as “Climate Change Deniers” wins you neither friends nor arguments.
3) No matter what their source, any monies given to organisations showing how scant is the evidence for global warming are absolutely dwarfed by the funds given by a tax-hungry political establishment to those who attempt to convince us otherwise. Any university department that brings out a paper against the government’s stance receives no further grants. You should al least consider this gross misuse of public funds when throwing charges of corruption around.
4) It is a fact that although current CO2 levels are the highest since direct measurements began, the world is cooling and has been doing so for the past twelve years.
5) There’s virtually no evidence to substantiate the man-made global warming hypothesis and there’s a lot of evidence to show that since the last ice age, for every year colder than the present one, nine have been hotter. This suggests that the Earth’s ‘normal’ temperature is hotter than now and any warming trend is a recovery towards normality.

The more one searches for genuine evidence of any genuine danger from global warming due to man-made greenhouse gases, the more one realises that the whole idea has been grossly exaggerated purely for political reasons.
You may not like Monckton, but assuming his stand on climate change is wrong because he bends the truth in other areas is pure naivety.

Greg_L-W. said...


Indeed the achievement of the Petition was excellent but rather demeaned by the unsustainable opinion regarding Anthropogenic Global warming for which there is absolutely no evidence that mankind has made any significant input.

To juxtaposition such rather foolish opinion with the clear achievement of the Petition is I believe a mistake as it implies the petition is as foolish as the Warmist Religion that is being touted without any valid foundation.