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

Sunday, 4 September 2011

UKIP: One Man's Sabotage of A Noble Cause. The Final Part


Final Part

Part One, Part Two, Part Three, Part Four, Part Five & Part Six can be seen by clicking here & here & here & here & here & here

Prepared by Derek Hunnikin
UKIP Membership No. 1428


The United Kingdom First Party was formed in Jan/February 2009 by Bruce Lawson (ex UKIP Treasurer) and Peter Cole (ex UKIP Regional Organiser).

A number of other Ex UKIP members joined, including:

Robin Page (former UKIP MEP candidate in the Eastern Region)
John Petley (ex Brussels based researcher)
John West (former UKIP press officer and Chairman of North Ipswich/Central Suffolk)
Petrina Holdsworth (ex Chairman of UKIP). Petrina is a retired Barrister and was thought to be a possible leader of the party
Drew Bellobaba (former UKIP MEP candidate and branch chairman in the South East
Ian Gilman (former UKIP NEC member and MEP candidate East Midlands)
Martin Haslam (former UKIP NEC member – Party and South East Region Treasurer).
David Noakes (who contested for the leadership of UKIP in 2006)

Others, such as David Abbott, Eric Edmond, and Geoffrey Kingscott (now deceased), maintained links with the party but were not members. (All three were thrown out of the NEC for criticising the leadership).

Robin Page, a fierce critic of Nigel Farage, also came on board and became leader of The UK First Party.

There had been much discussion amongst disgruntled UKIP members about forming a new eurosceptic party over the preceding two years.

At first it had been hoped to simply try to reform the inner workings of UKIP, and through the Grassroots Democracy and Phoenix Forum both of which had websites, and the latter which had meetings of interested members in Bournemouth in 2008.

However, it became clear that such activities were having little effect on the management of the party and it was decided to go ahead with a new party which could fight under its own banner in the 2009 Euro elections.

The UK First Party was formed to put forward a manifesto for withdrawal from the EU, its MEPs would publish their expenses in full, keep visits to Brussels to an absolute minimum, would not join any grouping, and only hold office for one term. In short, the party wanted to make it abundantly clear that their MEPs would keep a professional distance from the corrupting influence of the EU and its many blandishments whilst giving their best efforts to organising the Withdrawist Movement in the UK.

The party also had policies for smaller more accountable government, end to mass immigration, freedom of expression, less regulation, welfare reform, dismantling Quangos, food and energy, security, etc.

It was felt that UKIP had sullied itself with far too close contact with the EU; it had not kept its promises about publishing expenses and was perceived by many as having “gone native”.

There were also serious doubts about UKIP’s leadership’s desire and ability to take effective action to help the campaign for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty (the reason Petrina Holdsworth resigned from UKIP in January 2008).

Further to that many who joined The UK First Party had considerable misgivings about the fact that the MEPs were in effect running UKIP rather than being its servants, fairness of the MEP process of selection, and other internal matters.

UK First did well for a new party in the Euro elections but, due to Robin Page’s poor health at the time and internal wrangling, it dissolved itself later in 2009.



Item14, Farage embraces Eurofederalism, gave details of UKIP’s MEPs endorsing ‘subsidiarity’. There have been other questionable policy decisions notably, the idea UKIP should not contest any Westminster Parliamentary seat where another candidate, from the Conservative or Labour Party, had signed up to the ‘Better Off Out’ (BOO) campaign. As some MPs have clearly stated, they agree the UK would be ‘Better Off Out’ but, nevertheless, they would not advocate the UK leaving the EU.

A much more satisfactory solution to this problem is the one devised by Rodney Atkinson known as ‘British Declaration of Independence’ (BDI). Rodney Atkinson wrote in January 2007:

Press reports in recent days show that UKIP has again changed its policy and agreed not to stand against MPs (but not candidates) – provided they prove their euroscepticism by joining an organisation called “Better Off Out”. But Better Off Out advertises itself as a “non-party organisation committed to making the case for leaving the European Union” but it does not commit its members to legislation to achieve that aim.

Even if it had committed MPs in unequivocal terms to voting to leave the European Union (which it has not) that would not be sufficient to restore British democratic sovereignty – since the EU is not the only cause of the loss.

There is only one organisation which unequivocally commits Parliamentarians and candidates – by their signatures – to totally restoring our country, parliament and democracy and that is the British Declaration of Independence. The credibility which the Declaration provides – by committing signatories, ON PAIN OF RESIGNATION, to specific legislation – has more Westminster Parliamentarians pledged to sovereignty legislation than any other group.

The strength of the BDI is also recognised within UKIP whose members understand that organisations like Better Off Out have for years given cover to those who parade their euroscepticism at elections but then refuse to act when they get to parliament.

The strength of the BDI is recognised by members of other parties because it allows them to remain within their party but use the power of the voter to help them legislate for democratic sovereignty.

The strength of the BDI is recognised by voters because it identifies the supporters and enemies of democratic sovereignty so they can vote accordingly and thus assemble a cross party majority in Parliament for sovereignty legislation. (It needed just such a cross party majority to undermine that sovereignty in the first place – Heath’s Conservatives did not do it on their own).

The Tory party (in particular William Hague, whose own former Constituency Chairman has in desperation joined UKIP) “don’t want to bang on about Europe”.



A copy of the document MPs and prospective MPs are required to sign is given below.

The Democratic Declaration of a prospective MP to the electorate © 2005

This is a sample – the declarations sent to candidates have a unique code.

I, ………………….hereby irrevocably declare to my electorate that following my election to Parliament and after the BDI Executive Committee has confirmed that a majority of MPs is available to pass the legislation, I shall lay before Parliament and vote for the BDI Bill, or vote in favour of that Bill presented by other and continue to do so until the Bill is passed into law. The BDI Bill, in accordance with the rights of all peoples to self-determination as enshrined in the United Nations Convention on Civil and Political Rights of 1966 will:

Assert the sole authority of the Westminster Parliament to initiate, pass and repeal all legislation and regulation applied to the people of the United Kingdom and asserts the supreme authority of the British judiciary in all law applied to the people of the United Kingdom.

And will recognise:

• the sole allegiance of MPs, ministers and British officials to the Parliament and Democratic institutions of the United Kingdom and that all British subjects owe allegiance, duties and obligations only to the United Kingdom.

• the exclusive control by the Westminster parliament over who resides within and votes in any elections in the United Kingdom, control over the borders of the United Kingdom and the exclusive right to grant or withhold permission to cross those borders.

• the historic rights of British subjects to inter alia Habeas Corpus, Trial by Jury and presumed innocence, preventing their extradition to any jurisdiction which does not afford such rights or which refuses to extradite to the United Kingdom.

• the sole control by the Bank of England of all British gold and foreign currency reserves (and their location within the United Kingdom) and Bank of England or British Government control over t`he Pound Sterling, British national monetary policy and interest rates.

• the right of the British Government, as the representative of a Sovereign British people and nation, to sign international treaties and conventions which facilitate free trade and co-operation between nations but which in no way compromise the supreme authority of the Parliament of the United Kingdom.
And I pledge that in accordance with my Oath of Allegiance I will vote against any legislation which explicitly or impliedly repeals or controverts the above principles, whenever I become and so long as I remain a Member of Parliament.

I, ………………………………… being an MP/prospective parliamentary candidate hereby declare that I make this commitment for this and every future general election at which I may be a candidate. Should I not fulfil the terms of this Agreement when the BDI Bill is presented in Parliament, I will immediately resign so that a by-election may be held and a new mandate obtained for the remainder of the Parliament.

For further information visit: www.bdicampaign.org


Clearly, only a sample of the irregularities, counterproductive policy decisions, and the lack of transparency of UKIP’s accounts, occasioned by the leadership (not our treasurers), are given here. One that was brought to my attention last month is the unexplained reason for a change in policy immediately prior to the Welsh Assembly elections.

Ever since it was founded, Welsh members of UKIP had been campaigning for the Welsh Assembly to be closed down. In the run-up to the recent elections, for the Welsh Assembly, prospective UKIP candidates had been working hard, and spending their own money, broadcasting this policy. They were aware that, following the Conservative Party’s decision to no longer support the closure of the Welsh Assembly, and that in a recent poll 40,000 Welsh Tory supporters made clear they were in favour of its closure, UKIP Wales members believed their chances of representation in the Assembly was a distinct possibility.

However, ten days before the manifesto launch, Farage met with John Bufton in Cardiff to inform him that he had made the decision, unilaterally, that the 12 year policy of opposing the Welsh Assembly and Regional Government was over, and that the party no longer wanted the abolition of the Welsh Assembly.

A few days later Farage met with the prospective candidates and made it clear that the new policy was not going to be changed - ‘so either come with me or don’t stand’. The Conservatives and Labour grasped hold of this change and could not believe their luck. They informed their membership and all who would listen!

It must be pointed out that all of the Welsh UKIP candidates were opposed to the policy change. So, after the election, at the first meeting of the Welsh committee, it was unanimously voted to reinstate the long standing policy of opposition to Regionalisation of the UK and break up the United Kingdom into EU imposed Regional Assemblies.

Warwick Nicholson, the Chairman of UKIP Wales wrote – ‘We joined the party, because we believed in Britain, and we want Britain to leave the EU. UKIP should in no way adopt the EU’s policies or endorse them’.

Note: It was, I think, in 2004 that 78% of voters in the North East of England rejected Regional government.

A member, who proposed that UKIP MEPs should serve for one term only, was threatened with expulsion from the party for daring to make such a suggestion!! A prospective leader who advocated this idea, of one term only for our MEPs, would probably gain wide support. Surely, in future, there is a case for UKIP not to have MEPs. In any case, only those MEPs who use their position to campaign for election to our Westminster parliament are worthy of selection.

Then there is the Alan Bown case in which UKIP was informed, no less than seven times by the Electoral Commission, that before he could donate money to the party, Alan’s name and address must appear in a Register of Electors. For reasons which are unknown, this Alan failed to do. Summoning his aggressive style, Nigel Farage scuppered any hope of an amicable solution to this matter when he publicly declared that the Electoral Commission were only interested in prosecuting small parties. UKIP was lucky to come out of this mess with comparatively small legal costs. Many believe that a more diplomatic approach to this matter could have led to a cost free solution.


Then there is the recent call, from Marta Andreasen, for Nigel Farage to resign his leadership position for wasting £150,000 of members’ money on what she perceived as unnecessary expense
on litigation.


Under Farage’s leadership, UKIP is God’s gift to the legal profession. I would like to know the amount of money UKIP has haemorrhaged in legal expenses in the past ten years.


The disappearance, some years ago, of £211,000 from the South East Region accounts (which is Farage’s patch) in ‘other expenses’ has never been satisfactorily explained.


Under Farage’s insistence, UKIP membership application forms now make it clear that anyone who has been a member of The UK First Party, or the BNP, will not be accepted as a member of UKIP. Quite apart from the fact that no ex-UK First member would consider re-joining UKIP while Farage has any influence on the running of the party, anyone of them would be a greater asset to us than our current leader.

Farage’s campaign to absorb our MEPs into a pan-European Political Party is a blatant attempt to trigger an exodus of members and supporters. As the letter I have recently received from a member, clearly illustrates, the mere fact that he has suggested such a course has alerted her to the unsuitability of Farage as leader.

After having read the latest issue of Independence, a member wrote to me and her last paragraph reads as follows: “I have not renewed my membership of UKIP. I shall write to tell them that I cannot possibly support Farage in his attempt to join the pan-European Group. UKIP was formed to come out.” This lady has been a staunch supporter of the party for many years. She never lost an opportunity to canvass for UKIP, be it the butcher, baker, shop assistant, or even a stranger she happened to have got into conversation with. Even her doctor and nurses have been canvassed from her hospital bed. Yet another active member is leaving the party as she has come to the conclusion that our current leader ‘is not fit for purpose.’


Several people mentioned in this document who are said to have supported Farage in the past no longer do so. Regrettably, I do not have a list of these people.
One could go on …………


Who can doubt that, if all those people who resigned from UKIP over the past sixteen years had not done so, but fought for someone more worthy, Farage would not have been voted leader again last year.

A close relative tells me that, by remaining a member of UKIP, I am wasting my time supporting a party that has no hope, under Farage’s leadership or influence, of achieving the declared aim of freeing the UK from the clutches of the EU. She maintains that I should follow the lead of many other honourable people and leave the party, and that by remaining a member I seemingly endorse Farage’s actions and deeds and, in so doing, tarnish my own reputation.

However, as was clearly demonstrated by the failure of The UK First Party, it is too late to start another political party. There are a couple of dozen pressure groups that do a fine job of giving out ant-EU information but, because they do not have the aim of getting MPs of their persuasion into our Westminster parliament, they are toothless.

So, the only option is to campaign for UKIP to be led by someone who can demonstrate that the party can be trusted. One cannot vote for a new leader unless a party member - hence my reason, to date, for not resigning from UKIP.

In the main, people who join, or support UKIP, do so because they have come to realise that EU membership has caused a huge amount of damage to our nation, and it is rarely due to admiration of the leader. Canvassing by grassroots members, branch officials, and honourable MEPs, is also a major factor in the recruitment of UKIP members and supporters. There can be few sections of our population that have not been detrimentally affected by EU interference. UKIP is the only viable political party to which they can turn. However, I am aware that some people have become so disillusioned with UKIP they have joined the only other party committed to our withdrawal from the EU, namely, the British National Party. (BNP membership is, I believe, now under 4,000)

It would appear that some people support our party purely on the basis of Farage’s ability to entertain, especially in the EU parliament. However, his aggressive, flamboyant, style undoubtedly puts an equal number of people off supporting UKIP. His clowning in the EU parliament (see item 15) begs the questions “can UKIP be taken seriously.”

In my view, only those who are prepared to use their time as MEPs to promote themselves as a prospective MP should be selected to serve in Brussels. During their term in Brussels they must undertake to spend as much time and effort as possible to get themselves elected to Westminster. Before selection can be approved by the Party the candidate must have signed the “British Declaration of Independence”. By so doing they would have an advantage over other candidates who had signed the ‘Better Off Out’ document or demonstrated no commitment to our withdrawal from the EU. (See section 18). Furthermore, no MEP should be allowed to serve for more than one term. Thus, the position of being an MEP is used only as a stepping stone to becoming an MP.

The fact that Farage got 60% of the vote, in the last leadership election, suggests the knowledge of those who voted for him is limited to what they hear on the radio, or see of him on a platform or television/computer screen.

It appears that many believe ‘charisma’ is of vital importance, and look no further as to the suitability of the person as a leader. This is akin to judging the contents of a parcel purely on the appearance of the wrapping paper. History is littered with leaders who had an abundance of charisma but led their followers into disaster. Also, it was the mindset that dictated ‘we must support the leader’ that ensured the said disaster.

The most likely reason for leaving a political party is dissatisfaction with the leadership or policies of the party. (Bizarrely, a member telephoned me to say that, because our then new leader, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, was in favour of fox-hunting, she was resigning from UKIP immediately)!

Thus, the conduct of the party leader, and his/her selection of party officials and advisers, is of paramount importance. It is put to the reader that the vast majority of those who have deserted UKIP have done so purely because of their lack of faith/trust in Mr Nigel Farage MEP.

As Rodney Atkinson pointed out, Edward Heath got us into the EU with cross-party support, and this is probably the only way we can get out. The book, co-authored by the Conservatives Douglas Carswell MP and Daniel Hannan MEP, ‘The PLAN – twelve months to renew Britain’, should leave you in no doubt about their sincerity in campaigning for us to leave the EU. There are several other Conservative and Labour MPs who are equally committed to getting the UK out of the EU.

No-one can deny that Farage has worked very hard - speaking at public meetings throughout the UK and Europe, putting the case for the demise of the European Union. In the early days his commitment to our cause was unquestioned. The feeling among many today, however, is that Farage loves the lifestyle of an MEP and has ‘gone native’ in Europe, and the primary use of his energy is to promote himself, and the advancement of UKIP comes a poor second.

Despite what I have written above, after sixteen years as a member, most of which time I have been the Chichester Branch Membership Secretary and responsible for producing the branch newsletters, under pressure from my family, I have decided not to renew my membership of the party which expires at the end of this month. However, I shall continue to support the local branch in their effort to get our prospective MP, Andrew Moncreiff, elected to Westminster.

In an election for the leadership, or NEC members, it is hoped that members will garner as much information as possible about the candidates before voting.

Some have said, as a member, that by expressing dissatisfaction with the leadership of UKIP they are ‘rocking the UKIP boat’. If a yacht gets stuck on a dangerous sandbank sometimes the only way to free it is to ‘rock it’, which I believe is better than risking waiting for the rising tide to sink it!!

The question is - what can be done to install a trustworthy Captain at the helm of UKIP with a commitment to the noble cause of navigating the UK, with the support of a crew of UK Independence party members, out of the dangerous and damaging waters of the EU, and into a safe UK independent harbour?

A politician is one who thinks only of the next election. A statesman is one who thinks of the next generation. UKIP is in urgent need of a statesman to lead the party.

Have you, dear reader, any suggestions?

Derek Hunnikin
August 2011

No comments: