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

Saturday, 30 July 2011

UKIP's Pan-European Debate: Mike Nattrass on Farage's EFD Nutters



We would like to thank Steve Crowther for keeping the Junius Team fully informed of the current debate regarding the EFD and pan-European parties.

And thanks to Mike Nattrass for refusing to accept the lies and double standards of Nigel Farage and all those other UKIP MEPs who remain in the EFD Group!

-----Original Message-----
From: mike nattrass
To: NEC3 ; john kelly
CC: gawain ; duncanbarkes
Sent: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 14:35
Subject: RE: Norway

Sorry Steve.

But your email below is a classic.

Most UKIP MEPs are currently seen as "Birds of a Feather" in a Mickey Mouse Group of Nutters (including way out Italian Nutters) called the EFD Group and we are about to vote for the next stage .... more of it (Pan European Parties) ... on Nigel's recommendation.

Nikki, Trevor and myself have left the Group (detailing the records of these people) and David Campbell-Bannerman could take no more ...... yet we are voting on PEPPs. Am I missing something here? Is this the destruction of UKIP we are looking at?

I would like to laugh but the members are starting to cry.

Mike

MIKE NATTRASS MEP

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Wed, 27 Jul 2011 19:06:22 +0100
Subject: Norway
From: sjcrowther@btinternet.com
To: sjcrowther@btinternet.com; sjcrowther@btinternet.com; sjcrowther@btinternet.com; jkelly8543@aol.com
CC: gawain@gmail.com; duncanbarkes@hotmail.com

Dear All

NIgel Farage has issued the following statement today:

"As co-president of a Group in the European Parliament that stands for Freedom and Democracy, I find Breivik's actions and ideology of hatred totally repugnant. Anybody who would try to praise the political ideology of this mass murderer is morally and politically misguided."

UKIP dissociates itself from the remarks of Mario Borghezio – as has the Lega Nord itself. The Lega Nord is considering the issue, and we will await the result of their deliberations before discussing implications for the EFD.

Regards, Steve.
--
Stephen Crowther, Executive Chairman, UK Independence Party
Eastacombe House, Heanton Punchardon, Barnstaple, N Devon EX31 4DG.
Phone 01271 813844. Mobile 07775 787579.

Friday, 29 July 2011

UKIP: Well done Nigel!



As the dust settles on Nigel Farage's latest failed legal vendetta, this time against Alan Hardy, the cost is being counted. The Fuhrer's day in court will cost somebody - nobody is quite sure who - £16,000. That is on top of other costs incurred in the case, believed to total around £30,000. Now it is rumoured that Farage wants to take this to the Supreme Court.

But the real damage is that by pursuing this case and losing it, Farage may have opened the way for ex-BNP members to challenge the ban on them joining UKIP.

In fact, UKIP's constitution even allows for dual membership, which could potentially mean that current BNP members could challenge the ban on the grounds of political discrimination.

Well done Nigel!

Thursday, 28 July 2011

UKIP: Farage shamed by bad press into making press statement on Lega Nord


Too little, too late. Rest assured that Farage only made a statement because of the bad press that Borghezio and the EFD were getting on various blogs, the BBC and several national newspapers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jul/27/ex-berlusconi-minister-defends-breivik?CMP=twt_iph

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2019283/Norway-Shooting-Silvio-Berlusconi-ally-Borghezio-praises-Anders-Behring-Breivik.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/norway/8664159/Norway-killer-Anders-Behring-Breivik-emailed-manifesto-to-250-British-contacts.html

Let us not forget that Farage remained silent when Francesco Speroni - EFD member - said that weapons should be used on immigrants.

He said "all means" should be used to suppress the influx of people who are "violating Italy and her rules."

"That means weapons as a last resort,"
he added. See: LINK

And he remained silent when it was revealed that Borghezio and Messerschmidt had been arrested for racial offences.

And he remained silent when it was revealed that a Lega Nord MEP had called for racial segregation on Italian public transport.

Etc, etc, etc.

No one is fooled by Nigel's sudden sense of morality. A senior UKIPPER has already admitted to a member of the Junius Team that the statement reprinted below was Farage's desperate attempt at 'damage limitation'.

See: LINK

UKIP statement on Northern League

Thursday, 28th July 2011

Nigel Farage, Leader of UKIP, today contacted Francesco Speroni, co-president of The Europe of Freedom and Democracy (EFD), a group in the European Parliament, to demand an immediate retraction and apology following his remarks and those of his fellow Northern League MEP Mario Borghezio.

The comments, both made in recent radio interviews, were in response to the tragedy in Norway where seventy-six people were killed by Anders Behring Breivik. If no retraction is forthcoming then UKIP will suspend its membership of the EFD group in which it sits alongside the Italian political party.

Borghezio, described the ideas of Breivik as "good" and "excellent". Speroni has now said he believed Borghezio's comments to be "in support of Western civilisation". UKIP totally disassociates itself from the remarks of Borghezio and Speroni. The Northern League is due to meet tomorrow (Friday) to discuss the issue. In the meantime Northern League minister, Roberto Calderoli has condemned Borghezio's remarks.

Nigel Farage said: "I find Breivik's actions and idealogy of hatred totally repugnant. Anybody who would praise the political ideology of this mass murderer is morally and politically misguided. Consequently I have written to the leadership of the Northern League party to demand an immediate full retraction and apology. If my request is not met, then we will suspend our membership of the EFD group."


Also see: LINK

Wednesday, 27 July 2011

UKIP: Farage's EFD colleague praises Norwegian mass murderer

We note that an unnamed UKIP spokesman has stated that "Mr Borghezio's reported comments are shocking and, if accurately reported, reprehensible". However, they only made this statement after being approached by the BBC.

And they have been strangely silent when it comes to other statements made by MEPs/members of the various parties that make up UKIP's EFD Group:

The Slovak National Party reacted rather badly to their massive defeat in the Slovakian national elections.


"Homosexuals and Hungarians will begin to rule in this state, so thank you very much.”

Mr Slota - leader of the SNP - has described Slovak’s Hungarian minority as a "a tumour on the body of the Slovak nation".

He also famously said that "in 1248 a Frankish bishop was amazed after visiting the Carpathian basin that God could have given such a beautiful country to such ugly people. He was referring to the old Hungarians, who were Mongoloid types with crooked legs and even more disgusting horses. Somehow these people have vanished. Who civilized them? Probably us, the Slovaks".

Mr Slota has gone on record as saying that the best way to treat gypsies is with a “long whip in a small yard”. He even once threatened to “sit in our tanks and destroy Budapest".

Slota called the fascist leader Jozef Tiso "one of the greatest sons of the Slovak nation" and on February 17, 2000, 40 of the 41 city council members in Žilina, where Slota is mayor, voted to dedicate a plaque honoring Tiso.

And what of the True Finns?

In April 2009, all the leaders of Finland's political parties signed a declaration condemning racism. Only Soini refused to sign. The party also believes homosexuality to be an "aberration". Finnish celebrity Teuvo Loman complained to police about a Facebook site, called "Lets beat Teuvo Straight", set up by a True Finns candidate for Urjala municipal council elections. The site allegedly promoted violence against Loman.

In December 2006, True Finn councillor Jussi Halla-aho caused a controversy when he published the following comments as part of a discussion about immigrants and rape: “The number of rapes will increase in any case. Therefore, as more and more women will undoubtedly get raped, I sincerely hope that at least the right women, the green-leftist reformers and their voters, will find themselves in the clutches of the rapists, who randomly select their victims. Rather them than anyone else. With people like that nothing else works, except when their own multiculturalist views turn against them.” Halla-aho, who describes asylum seekers as "parasites" , has been charged with hate crimes.

And Lega Nord?

Giancarlo Gentilini, Lega Nord's Mayor of Treviso, is notorious for having said said of immigrants, that "we should dress them up like hares and bang-bang-bang".

However, Gentilini also declared, at a rally in Padania in 2008, that "We must cleanse our streets of the black-skinned, the yellow-skinned, the Roma … I would have all the immigrants put on file, one by one. Unfortunately, this is not allowed by the law. They are the carriers of all sorts of diseases, tuberculosis, Aids, scabies, hepatitis." As a result he was convicted of "inciting racial hatred", and banned from speaking at political meetings.

Lega Nord was expelled from Farage's Ind Dem group back in 2006. Now they are back, in the EFD group, and Farage says that they have "behaved themselves since the expulsion".

Have they, Nigel? Since the expulsion, Gentili has been convicted of incitement to racial hatred, MEP Mario Borghezio has been arrested for "racial offences" by Belgian police (2007), and last year, Matteo Salvini, (one of the MEPs expelled by Farage), has called for "racial segregation" on Italian public transport, and has appeared on you tube chanting racist slogans with football supporters.

And Morton Messerschmidt?

In 2002, Messerschmidt received a jail sentence for incitement to racial hatred. But it gets worse - much worse.

In 2007, Messerschmidt was forced to resign from the Danish government after he was seen "Heiling Hitler" and singing Nazi marching songs in a bar in Copenhagen. He has subsequently denied some of the allegations, although at the time he confessed.

We note that UKIP's leaders - and those UKIP MEPs who still remain in the EFD - have failed to condemn ANY of the racist and homophobic statements quoted above. Need we say more? See: LINK & LINK

This is what Nikki Sinclaire had to say about Borghezio:

From her blog:

Vile Lega Nord MEP and UKIP colleague Borghezio agrees with Norwegian monsters manifesto

How on earth can UKIP continue to sit in the same group as this man?

Press Statement by Nikki Sinclaire MEP

On the atrocities in Norway, and the response of the Lega Nord MEP Mario Borghezio

My heart goes out to the victims of the atrocities that took place in Norway last week, and to their families. There can be no excuses, no justifications, this was nothing but an act of pure and unmitigated evil.

In protest against violent right-wing extremism, I resigned from UKIP's political group in the European Parliament, the Europe of Freedom & Democracy (EFD). I particularly cited the racism and homophobia prevelant in the Italian Lega Nord. As a result of my stand, I had the UKIP party whip withdrawn by the party leadership.

In the wake of this vile mass murder, one of those Lega Nord MEPs I particularly objected to, Mario Borghezio, a man with at least two convictions for racially motivated violence, including an assualt on a child, has gone on record as supporting the murderer Breivik. He stated that “One hundred per cent of Breivik’s ideas are good, in some cases extremely good. The positions of Breivik reflect the views of those movements across Europe which are winning elections.”

I now call upon UKIP MEPs to distance themselves from this objectionable political group, of which Lega Nord is not the only party to contain members with racial convictions. As 76 families mourn their loved ones, now is the moment for UKIP MEPs to take stock, and act on their conscience, rather than remain in a political group with such extremists, purely on the grounds that they can earn more money by doing so.

ENDS

For further information contact Nikki Sinclaire MEP on 07941 461255


To see the original: LINK

From the BBC:

Italy MEP backs ideas of Norway killer Breivik

An Italian MEP has described the ideas of Norway's self-confessed mass killer, Anders Behring Breivik, as "good" and in some cases "excellent".

Mario Borghezio, who belongs to the Northern League party, condemned Mr Breivik's violence, but backed his stance against Islam.

The Northern League is a partner in PM Silvio Berlusconi's government.

Mr Borghezio's comments in a radio interview sparked outrage, with opposition calls for the MEP to resign.

Mr Breivik's justification for killing 76 people was that he wanted to inflict maximum damage on Norway's governing Labour Party because of its failure to clamp down on immigration.

"Some of the ideas he expressed are good, barring the violence. Some of them are great," Mario Borghezio told Il Sole-24 Ore radio station.

He agreed with Mr Breivik's "opposition to Islam and his explicit accusation that Europe has surrendered before putting up a fight against its Islamicisation".

The Northern League is an avowedly anti-immigration, regionalist Italian political party, key to the governing coalition, and known for its anti-Islamic rhetoric.

The controversy sparked swift reaction from fellow MEPs.

"My heart goes out to the victims of the atrocities that took place in Norway last week, and to their families. There can be no excuses, no justifications. This was nothing but an act of pure and unmitigated evil," said Nikki Sinclaire.

Ms Sinclaire resigned last year from the European Parliament umbrella group, Europe of Freedom & Democracy (EFD), which included her UK Independence Party, as well as Italy's Northern League. She cited the racism of Northern League members in making her decision.

"Mr Borghezio's reported comments are shocking and, if accurately reported, reprehensible. They are in no way reflective of UKIP's position or that of the EFD Group," said a UKIP spokesman.

'Create monsters'

But Mr Borghezio is not the only right-wing politician to express sympathy with the actions of Anders Behring Breivik.

A member of France's far-right National Front party has been suspended after writing a defence of the Norwegian attacker on his blog.

Jacques Coutela described Mr Breivik as "the main defender of the West", comparing him to Charles Martel, a seventh century leader who halted Islamic expansion in western Europe.

"The reason for the Norway terror attacks: fighting the Muslim invasion, that's what people don't want you to know", read the post.

Mr Coutela stood as a National Front candidate in local elections in March.

"He was suspended today pending a party disciplinary committee," said Steeve Briois, the Front's general secretary.

Meanwhile, the leader of the English Defence League (EDL), Stephen Lennon, said the mass killing in Norway was a wake-up call.

"What happened in Oslo shows how desperate some people are becoming in Europe," said Mr Lennon, who was convicted earlier this week of leading a brawl involving 100 football fans.

"It's a ticking time bomb. If they don't give that frustration and anger a platform as such and a voice - and a way of getting emotion out in a democratic way - it will create monsters like this lunatic."

The EDL is also known for its strong stance against immigration.

Mr Breivik has posted admiring comments online about the EDL.

The League leadership is checking his claims to have contacts among its members.

To read the original: LINK

UKIP: Steve Allison makes an even bigger fool of himself



We note that Steve Allison - wannabe MEP - has been circulating an email. Anyone reading this email can only come to one conclusion - Allison is a fool.

From: Stephen Allison

Date: 22 July 2011 22:35:36 GMT

Subject: CONFIDENTIAL

PLEASE TREAT THIS AS CONFIDENTIAL.

You may have heard that UKIP lost its appeal in court today against the re-admittance to membership of a Mr.Alan Hardy. This is being spun by certain anti-UKIP Blogs and Websites as a defeat for UKIP and touted an example of how Nigel has been wasting UKIP's money on personal legal vendettas.

Junius says: It was clearly a defeat for UKIP. Their appeal was rejected by THREE APPEAL COURT JUDGES in The Strand. Didn't Allison bother to read the judgement?

And it WAS a waste of UKIP money as the leadership had clearly not followed party rules when they decided to expel Mr Hardy.

Allison says: I do not think anyone who knows me would accuse me of being a Nigel Sycophant or someone who believes Nigel can do no wrong, However, in this case I am definitely 100% behind Nigel. Alan Hardy is a former member of the BNP and his case is AT THE MOMENT limited to him. However, I believe that he is being used as a Trojan Horse to force UKIP to accept BNP Members into out ranks and worse. I copy below an e-mail that Hardy sent after the Appeal Court Ruling.

Junius says: So you are 100% behind Nigel? No surprise there. Your ambition is to be an MEP and you know that the only way you can do that is by kissing Nigel's arse at every opportunity. Can we remind Allison that Farage and the NEC were fully aware that Mr Hardy was a former member of the BNP.

This is what the original judge said:

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage.

See: LINK

Junius says: So when can we expect expect Allison to call on the rest of UKIP's MEPs to leave the EFD? After all, they are happy to sit with people that make the BNP look like liberals! Failure to condemn Farage for sitting with people who advocate segregation on public transport can only result in Allison being labelled a hypocrite and an opportunist.

For more on Farage's fascist allies in the EFD: LINK & LINK

Allison says: UKIP has to fight this man to the bitter end! We have all worked too hard to destroy the myth that UKIP and the BNP are in any way alike, we must keep out the BNP, this is a fight we cannot afford to lose.

Junius says: So will Allison be offering a very generous contribution to UKIP's legal fund? We doubt it. Some people are very generous when it comes to spending other people's money. Just ask Nigel.

And can we remind Allison that Farage was more than happy to meet the BNP when he thought that his career in UKIP was over. See: LINK


Steve Allison

-------- Original Message -------- Subject: UKIP'S APPEAL
Date: Fri, 22 Jul 2011 14:23:22 +0100
From: alan hardy
To: Gordon Parkin , Jonathan Arnott , lisa duffy , , Malcolm Goyns , Nigel Farage , Stephen Allison

Dear Sirs,

Courtesy of the Court of Appeal: those within UKIP who feel so inclined CANNOT do as they please, they are bound by the law as are the rest of society. And I may add that UKIP faces further legal action unless the decision not to allow former members of the BNP to stand as candidates for the party, as well as for internal posts, is reversed. Indeed I would like to see written evidence that it even exists.

Take note all of you, especially Mr. Farage.

ALAN HARDY

successful litigant.






We note that Annabelle Fuller attended the appeal. Well, at least it gave her a good excuse to spend time with Nigel. We just hope that everyone kept an eye on their BlackBerry. She does have a tendency to 'borrow' them! See: LINK


We also note that Michael 'who ate all the pies' Greaves was also at the Appeal Court. We sincerely hope that Nigel managed to steer him away from the restaurant! The words 'shark' and 'feeding frenzy' do rather spring to mind when we think of Mr Greaves and food. For more on this incompetent see: LINK

Tuesday, 26 July 2011

UKIP: Nikki Sinclaire on EU expansion



From the EU Reporter:

EU Enlargement: The Huge Pre-Accession Costs.

Nikki Sinclaire MEP argues that the pre-accession costs of Turkey, Croatia and Serbia means that EU is simply giving billions away in the hope of buying friendship and stability.

“There are certain factions amongst the EU political elite that are unlikely ever to accept Turkish accession. Whilst there certainly are social and economic matters that are problematic, the same could be said of any of the recent new member states.

In his 2004 report urging early accession of Bulgaria, which failed to meet certain criteria, Conservative MEP Geoffrey Van Orden seemed to suggest that the interests of the EU were best served by a prompt accession, and that the problems might therefore be overlooked.

So why is Turkey different? Of course, there is the matter of the Turkish occupation of Northern Cyprus, but Turkey would not be the only state to join the EU with unresolved border issues - Croatia has long standing disputes with Slovenia, Serbia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, and Montenegro and yet that country is set for accession in July 2013. So are there other issues?

Personally, I don't want to see any further expansion of the EU, but I don't like to see racism being hidden behind so-called economic or social arguments. Turkey is a rising power, and its exclusion from the EU has led it to emerge as one of three main poles of power in Europe, the other two being Russia and the EU.

It is actually a sign of the EU's impotence in foreign affairs that a bloc of 27 nations is unable to dominate its own political space.

We now live not only in a multi-polar world, but in a multi-polar Europe. As a result of Turkey's increasing importance in its own right, support amongst the Turkish population for EU membership has almost halved to just 38%. €4.33 billion, a huge amount of money, has been spent by the EU on Turkey's pre-accession preparations.

To exactly what end is this being spent? Will Turkey ever join the EU?

In 2007, Nicolas Sarkozy stated that "Enlarging Europe with no limit risks destroying European political union, and that I do not accept...I want to say that Europe must give itself borders, that not all countries have a vocation to become members of Europe, beginning with Turkey which has no place inside the European Union."

Is Sarkozy really opposed to EU expansion as his words seem to suggest, or is he just opposed to Turkey?

Given its geopolitically strategic position, Turkey would be well advised to lean east, which it will probably do as soon as the EU stops giving it handouts. This would weaken the EU's already vulnerable position regarding security of energy supply, and would greatly increase Russian domination in this area.

Croatia emerged from its post-conflict mode in 2000, the vital tourist sector is booming, and its institutions and civil society are being rebuilt, which explains the relatively modest sum of €748 million being spent on pre-accession arrangements over 4 years.

However, Croatia is recovering on its own, and looks to be the success story of its region. Ironically, whilst Croatia recovers, economic problems within the Eurozone have caused public support for EU accession to wane.

Accession negotiations with Serbia have yet to be opened, but the country is in receipt of considerable EU largesse; €1.9 billion, to be precise. Serbia has a larger population than Croatia - 7.3 million - a figure which includes the highest refugee population in Europe.

The Serbian economy is also performing well; indeed growth has at times been fractionally higher than that of Croatia.

There remain problems over Serbia's relationship with Kosovo, but President Barosso has declared that the failure of Belgrade to recognise Kosovo is not a barrier to EU accession. Russia has been heavily investing in Serbia's energy infrastructure - demand for energy is growing in Serbia.

Cynics might say that Russia is spending its money wisely, and will receive good dividends, both politically and economically, on its investment. The EU, on the other hand, is simply giving billions away in the hope of buying friendship and stability.”

To view the original: LINK

Monday, 25 July 2011

UKIP: East Midlands meeting, Steve Allison on Alan Hardy and No to PEPs


Tonight's East Midlands Meeting

Another East Midlands meeting is being held in Newark. We are informed that Charles Swaby - new member, lawyer and former NATO legal officer - wants to push forward with membership recruitment and new party policies.

However, Derek Clark is less than keen to allow this new blood to galvanise the membership. He is content to keep things just as they are - falling membership, branches closing and apathy across the region. The only thing that Clark is worried about is his MEP salary and that fat EU pension.

Steve Allison makes a fool of himself


We note that Steve Allison has being trying to defend Farage's decision to fight Mr Hardy in the courts. See: LINK



Alan Hardy

Mr Allison claims that Farage was right to fight the case as Mr Hardy was a former BNP member. We strongly advise Mr Allison to read the original decision of the court. It may prevent him making an ass of himself in the future.

In fact, Farage and the NEC had no problem with the fact that Mr Hardy was ex-BNP.

This is what the judge said:

Therefore I conclude that the NEC did consider Mr Hardy’s individual case in March and decided that his former membership of the BNP was no obstacle to his membership of UKIP continuing. That is hardly surprising in view of the warmth with which Mr Hardy had been welcomed into the UKIP fold from the BNP not least from Mr Farage.

The Judge ruled that Mr Hardy had been unlawfully expelled from the party as UKIP's leadership had failed to follow its own procedures.

See: LINK

No to PEPs

Interesting article from a fellow blogger.

A PEP “Yes” vote would be suicide for UKIP

Around about now, UKIP members are receiving ballot papers through the post with the latest edition of Independence magazine (at least, this is how I got mine).

For non-membership (and I suppose there are plenty of those), let me explain that a referendum is underway to decide whether or not to allow UKIP MEPs to join a pan-European (political) party in the European Parliament. Such an entity qualifies for EU funding (£19 million set aside in 2012 to be divided between all PEPs). As far as I am concerned, what it is pretty much about is an EU ruse to financially incentivise disparate national parties to become gradually further subsumed into the European institutions – to blot out opposition by introducing a corrupting cash-milk teat. It is about looking, through bribery, to establish recognition of the European Parliament as a legitimate democratic body from parties such as UKIP who are in principle opposed to it. Moreover, control of populations is all about perception, and the European Parliament is looking to be seen in the same way as a national parliament is with a few parties representing all the regions.

However, as Gerard Batten
argues, there is not a withdrawalist party which UKIP could join that will represent its membership. Moreover, the bribe for which UKIP MEPs could compromise their principles and betray the people who voted for them cannot be used to campaign in a UK General Election which is the only battleground that matters in terms of withdrawing from the EU (Parliament can bring us out when a majority of MPs demand it).

The “Yes” argument boils down to wanting money – or at least, that is very much how it will be perceived to be the case (I guarantee), and in a climate where the establishment is viewed by the electorate as corrupt, this will give UKIP’s opponents plenty of ammunition and an opportunity to portray the party as only wanting to move into the establishment to share the spoils, instead of wanting to replace it – as UKIP’s mission should be widely understood to be.

I already see comments from members of the public in the online newspapers who cannot understand why UKIP MEP’s sit in the European Parliament, and help legitimise the institution. When UKIP MEPs stand up and speak, it even gives the place the air of a serious debating chamber which is intent on holding the executive to account – something that the European Parliament is a long way away from being. They speculate that the motive for UKIP involvement must be the wages.

Despite this, the “Yes” campaign somehow thinks that it is acceptable to argue that it needs to join a PEP to become eligible for the EU bribe which in turn can be used for the purposes of financing and winning EU elections (although there seems to be doubt that UKIP, as a national party, can even do this). Whatever the case, the argument looks like one for accepting EU money to make more EU money, and it is inviting political crucifixion from a hard pressed tax payer.

Like the degenerate Marquis de Sade, at a fundamental level the “Yes” campaign is saying “in an age that is utterly corrupt, the best policy is to do as others do.” The voting public will punish UKIP if it adheres to this philosophy and adopts the sense of entitlement possessed by the LibLabCon. They will be punished because in the utterly corrupt age, the public are the ones who are suffering to a breaking point that is not too far away. If UKIP does not want to go down with the LibLabCon ship, it should vote No.

As well as above mentioned Batten pitch, please see the following for other eminently better-argued cases (than mine) for voting No.
Trevor Coleman MEP
Prof Tim Congdon

To read the original: LINK

Friday, 22 July 2011

Alan Hardy on UKIP's defeat in the Appeal Court


Another costly legal defeat for UKIP. Another £16,000 of member's money thrown away in a single day!

And all because Farage's ego wouldn't let him accept that UKIP had been in the wrong when they unlawfully tried to ban Mr Hardy from meetings and expel him from the party.

And all because Farage refused to pay a paltry £750 in damages to Mr Hardy!

Click here for the original judgement against UKIP.

Would Nigel have been so keen to fight this case if he had been using money from his own bank account?

Remember what Bannerman said:

Nigel's taste for pursuing personal vendettas on the party’s credit account, has led to a legal bill running at £140,000 a year.

And now Mr Hardy's statement:

Hello everyone,

Well, UKIP's barrister - fine man that he is - argued and argued yesterday in Court 74, Court of Appeal...unsuccessfully. It's now official: those within UKIP who are so inclined cannot do what they like; they are bound by the law like the rest of us.

Nigel Farage turned up, accompanied by a lady of, shall I say, ample bosom, who I took to be some form of assistant. He disappeared before the proceedings commenced, without having even acknowledged me. She, however, remained and I saw her and Parkin, who was also there, cosying up to one another behind me in the court room. There was also a short, very fat, grey-beared man hovering around the place, clearly as part of the opposing side's team. Does anyone recognise the description?

Anyway, that's it in a nutshell. Where they are planning on going from hereon is anyone's guess. Oh, I almost forgot, when the barrister, the wheelchair-bound Mr Engelman (Trinity Chambers), was asked about the costs he quoted a figure of £16,000 in total. Somehow I find myself doubting that...

ALL GOOD WISHES

ALAN HARDY




UKIP lose court case. Farage leaves court in humiliation



UKIP's appeal has been rejected! Alan Hardy emerged from the court victorious! Farage left the court with his tail between his legs. He couldn't even bear to stay for the proceedings! UKIP's legal costs run into thousands! More news soon!

Thursday, 21 July 2011

UKIP Back in Court: Nigel prepares to throw away at least £30,000 in order to avoid paying £750 in court damages to member of his own party!


Alan Hardy

Readers of this blog will remember that Alan Hardy successfully defeated UKIP in court. This case concerned Gordon Parkin's - UKIP NE Regional Organiser - decision to ban Mr Hardy from attending UKIP meetings. UKIP's leadership also tried to expel him from the party. In response, Mr Hardy took them to court. UKIP foolishly relied on Lisa Duffy to argue their case in court. And the result? UKIP lost. They were ordered to reinstate Mr Hardy and pay him £750 in damages See: LINK & LINK

So would Farage accept the judgement in good grace? Fat chance! His ego won't allow it.

Now what did Bannerman say?

Nigel's taste for pursuing personal vendettas on the party’s credit account, has led to a legal bill running at £140,000 a year.

See: LINK

UKIP has been given leave to appeal and the case will be heard today. UKIP's legal costs are likely to be at least £30,000! And even if they win, Mr Hardy will not be liable for UKIP's costs!

So UKIP's leadership is willing to waste thousands contesting the original decision of the court rather than pay out a paltry £750! So will Stuart Wheeler be expected to foot the bill? And will Farage even tell him what the money is for? And what does the membership think? Are they happy that the party is willing to spend at least £30,000 in order to avoid paying Mr Hardy £750 in damages?

Farage really needs his head looking at. That crash must have affected his mind more than we originally thought. Spending at least £30,000 to avoid writing a cheque for £750 doesn't sound like the wisest of moves!

Here is a recent email from Mr Hardy:

Subject: GENERAL NEWS
Date: Mon, 11 Jul 2011 12:18:20 +0100

Hello everyone,

I'm sure most, if not all of you know, that I obtained judgment in the High Court last year against not only the local chairman of the political party of which I am a member, but also the party itself.

The defendant's did not like that and appealed. The appeal is to be heard next week in the Court of Appeal in London. As at the original hearing, I shall be representing myself. And, as a condition of the appeal, the other side will not be able to claim costs against me even if they win - and I'll see to it they don't! They also have a new barrister on the job; it appears the original one left his chambers for pastures new some time after the hearing last September. I can't understand why. Perhaps losing against a layman was more than his professional constitution could bear. But that's his problem. Anyway it'll be yours truly up before the 'big beaks' next week!

I've been on something of a weight loss/fitness programme these past six weeks. I've lost a total of 16 lbs, which I suppose is fairly good going. Over the last few weeks, however, this has plateau'd to a loss of 1 lb per week, which I came to find discouraging, especially after all the effort it takes. It reached the point where, on Saturday night just gone - I weigh myself each Saturday morning - I resolved to give it up as a bad job and go back to being a fat slob again.

The next morning I woke up and, having drunk my first coffee of the day, went off to buy a copy of the last edition of the News of the World. Now I haven't bought a copy of that newspaper for YEARS, but as it was the last opportunity to do so I thought I'd see what it had to offer.

I had a good look through it. The glossy supplement didn't have much of interest to men, apart from a lovely picture of the luminously beautiful Thandie Newton near the front. There was the obligatory crossword near the end and on the opposite page were the star forecasts for the week. Now my star sign is Leo, so I had a look at what the resident clairvoyant had to say. It was this (and you can check on it):

"YOU HAVE THE WILLPOWER TO START, OR RESTART, A FITNESS PLAN AND ENSURE IT WORKS"

Mystic Meg saves the day.

BYE FOR NOW

ALAN

Wednesday, 20 July 2011

Dr Edmond on EUKIP


Dr Edmond was a member of UKIP's NEC. He was thrown off it because, unlike the likes of Zuckerman and Oxley, he was not prepared to turn a blind eye to corruption and dishonesty.

Rachel Oxley: Farage sycophant and, until recently, corrupt member of UKIP's NEC

We note that both Zuckerman and Oxley have now left the NEC. Members should not forget that both actively colluded in preventing Dr Edmond, Dr Abbott and Del Young from cleaning up the party and stamping out corruption. Indeed, both are two of the worst examples of the filth that have prospered in UKIP thanks to Farage's protection. Their guilt is as great as their leader. No one will mourn their departure.

Here is the latest posting from Dr Edmond's blog:

EUKIP made flesh

I received today my copy of Independence news. It also contained two slips of paper and an envelope relating to Farage's financially motivated wish to join UKIP MEPs to a Pan European, EU supporting party. Farage wants UKIP to take the EU bribe and sell out our core principle of EU withdrawal so that he can have a bigger budget solely under his control to spend in Brussels. This money cannot be used to support our withdrawal cause in any way and opens the door for Pan European parties to contest the next UK European election. I fully expect Farage will be standing for a Pan European party. He may be prepared to sacrifice his principles for money but I, and I hope many other UKIP members, will never take the EU's poisoned Euro.

While on the NEC Del, David and I fought long and hard for UKIP elections to be conducted independently by the Electoral Reform Society to maintain the probity and integrity of UKIP elections. This has now been ditched. Both slips of paper say, "Should the UK Independence party MEPs join a European Political Party and a European Political Foundation under regulation EC 2004/2003". This wonderful piece of EU gobbledegook shows how far Farage and his cronies have embraced and support the EU!

One slip has YES on it and one slip NO. They are called ballot papers which must be returned to an address, UKIP Ballot, 11 Church Street, Hartlepool, TS24 7DJ. That is not UKIP's head office. It seems to be the address of the firm Atkinson Print Ltd who printed the ballot papers. What on earth is going on? No mention of checks or scrutiny of the electoral process, or returning officer. In short a system wide open to abuse and manipulation . No wonder UKIP is fast becoming a laughing stock.

This image is furthered by some real vote losing articles printed in Independence News. One exhorts UKIP to support Israel and is written by one Jacob Campbell, Press Officer, UKIP Friends of Israel. What can UKIP gain from this association given the largely justified bad publicity Israel gets in the media and the BBC?

Then we have the batty Earl opining on the EU threat to OUR herbal pills and potions. This all seems to have originated from the Earl's grandmother Barbara Cartland. Wow! He then describes properly licensed drugs as a 'big killer' and follows with the sentence, "Over 40000 deaths are recorded in the UK alone". What on earth does that mean? Another vote loser

Our MEPs certainly do their best to live up to Cast Iron Dave's fruit cakes and loonies description of UKIP. They should stick to pissing on Brussels hotel plants and not pissing on UKIP. Still there is always Monckton being warned off pretending to be a member of the House of Lords to restore sanity to our party.

To read the original: LINK

Nuff said!

Tuesday, 19 July 2011

UKIP: Monckton starts to feel the heat!


Christopher Monckton: UKIP Leader in Scotland and serial liar. And who brought him into UKIP? None other than Nigel Farage!

Readers of this blog will recall how we have comprehensively exposed Christopher Monckton as a liar (LINK). We had hoped that he would desist from telling further porkies. Some hope!

Sadly, he still persists in claiming to be a member of the House of Lords. Therefore, it came as no surprise to learn that 'the powers that be' were no longer prepared to tolerate his dishonesty.

Dear Lord Monckton

My predecessor, Sir Michael Pownall, wrote to you on 21 July 2010, and again on 30 July 2010, asking that you cease claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication. It has been drawn to my attention that you continue to make such claims.

In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House".

I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a Member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters Patent, a Peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgment in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office) where Mr Justice Lewison stated:

"In my judgment, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to 'a member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that House ... In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that House. It does not mean entitlement to the dignity of a peerage."
I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a Member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a Member "without the right to sit or vote".

I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not.

David Beamish
Clerk of the Parliaments

15 July 2011


To read the original: LINK

We note that the UKIP website (LINK) describes Monckton as a 'man of many talents'. It's a pity that honesty isn't one of them!

Monckton's lies are featured in the national press:

From the BBC News

Viscount Monckton warned off Lords membership claim

Viscount Monckton was an adviser to the Thatcher government in the 1980s UKIP climate change spokesman and deputy leader Viscount Monckton has been warned to stop calling himself a member of the House of Lords.

It follows an interview he gave to Australian radio in which he said he was a member "but without the right to sit or vote".

But he was told not to repeat the claim by the Clerk of Parliaments.

In a letter David Beamish told him: "you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords".

Legislation in 1999 ended the link between holding a hereditary peerage and being a member of the Lords.

Viscount Monckton inherited his title from his father who died in 2006 - who had been a member of the House of Lords until 1999, when the legislation was introduced.

He has since stood in four by-elections to replace hereditary peers who had died - but failed to be elected.

'Contradiction in terms'

In his letter the Clerk of Parliaments says his predecessor also wrote to Viscount Monckton twice, in July 2010, asking him to stop claiming to be a member of the House "either directly or by implication".

But he says the peer has since continued to make the claims.

"In particular, I have listened to your recent interview with Mr Adam Spencer on Australian radio. In response to the direct question, whether or not you were a Member of the House of Lords, you said "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote". You later repeated, "I am a Member of the House"," Mr Beamish wrote.

"I must repeat my predecessor's statement that you are not and have never been a Member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms.

"No-one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House."

He goes on to add that he is publishing the letter "so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a Member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not".

Viscount Monckton, who served as an adviser to the Thatcher government between 1982 and 1986, is a former journalist and is well known as a climate change sceptic.

He joined the UK Independence Party in 2009, as its chief spokesman on climate change. He became the party's deputy leader last year.

To read the original: LINK

And this from The Guardian

The House of Lords has taken the unprecedented step of publishing a "cease and desist" letter on its website demanding that Lord Christopher Monckton, a prominent climate sceptic and the UK Independence party's head of research, should stop claiming to be a member of the upper house.

The move follows a testy interview given by Monckton to an Australian radio station earlier this month in which he repeated his long-stated belief that he is a member of the House of Lords. When asked by ABC Sydney's Adam Spencer if he was a member, he said: "Yes, but without the right to sit or vote … [The Lords] have not yet repealed by act of parliament the letters patent creating the peerage and until they do I am a member of the house, as my passport records. It says I am the Right Honourable Viscount Monckton of Brenchley. So get used to it."

The letter, sent by David Beamish, clerk of the parliaments, to Monckton last Friday and now published on the Lords' website, states: "You are not and have never been a member of the House of Lords. Your assertion that you are a member, but without the right to sit or vote, is a contradiction in terms. No one denies that you are, by virtue of your letters patent, a peer. That is an entirely separate issue to membership of the House. This is borne out by the recent judgement in Baron Mereworth v Ministry of Justice (Crown Office)."

In May, Mr Justice Lewison threw out an action at the Royal Courts of Justice brought by Baron Mereworth, who maintains that it his hereditary entitlement to attend the Lords, despite the House of Lords Act 1999 debarring all but 92 of the 650 hereditary peers, including his late father Lord Oranmore and Browne. Mr Justice Lewison ruled: "In my judgement, the reference [in the House of Lords Act 1999] to a 'member of the House of Lords' is simply a reference to the right to sit and vote in that house … In a nutshell, membership of the House of Lords means the right to sit and vote in that house."

The letter from Beamish to Monckton continues: "I must therefore again ask that you desist from claiming to be a member of the House of Lords, either directly or by implication, and also that you desist from claiming to be a member 'without the right to sit or vote'. I am publishing this letter on the parliamentary website so that anybody who wishes to check whether you are a member of the House of Lords can view this official confirmation that you are not."

The Guardian understands that the House of Lords has been consulting with its lawyers on this issue since the ABC radio interview aired. It is not yet clear what form of sanction the Lords has available to it should Monckton persist with his claim.

Last year, the then clerk of the parliaments, Michael Pownall, wrote to Monckton stressing that he was not entitled to call himself a member, nor should he use parliament's famous portcullis symbol on his letterheads or lecture slides, as he has done for a number of years.

Monckton wrote back stating that "the House of Lords Act 1999, which purported to exclude hereditary peers from membership of the House of Lords, is defective". He argued that the act removed the right to sit or vote in the upper house, but did not remove membership because peerages are granted by letters patent, which are a personal gift of the monarch. Monckton claimed in the letter that "only a specific law can annul a grant. The 1999 act was a general law."

Buckingham Palace was drawn into the dispute when it was revealed that Pownall had sought advice from the Lord Chamberlain, a key officer in the royal household, on the potential misuse of the portcullis emblem due to it being the property of the Queen. The Buckingham Palace website states that any misuse of the emblem is prohibited by the Trade Marks Act 1994, meaning Monckton could potentially be liable for fines and a six-month prison term if the palace pursues the matter and successfully prosecutes him.


Official logo of the House of Lords (left) and that used by Christopher Monckton (right). Photograph: Torsten Blackwood/AFP/Getty Images

Monckton has since been using a slightly altered portcullis emblem on his lecture slides. The two chains hanging either side of portcullis are now kinked instead of straight. It is not known whether the Lord Chamberlain is content with the change. A spokesperson told the Guardian that the palace was "aware of the issue", but it had a policy of not commenting on private correspondence between it and an individual.

Monckton is currently on a lecture tour of Australia discussing climate change. The tour has been dogged by venue cancellations after he referred to the Australian government's former climate advisor Prof Ross Garnaut as a fascist during a recent lecture in Los Angeles. Footage of the lecture also showed Monckton displaying a swastika next to one of Garnaut's quotes. Monckton later apologised for "having made the point I was trying to make in such a catastrophically stupid and offensive way".

To read the original: LINK

Monday, 18 July 2011

UKIP: Steve Allison on the NEC



A most interesting report!

Here are a few choice bits!

To be honest nothing of any great importance was discussed at the NEC, which is about par for the course. No papers were distributed in advance of the NEC so once again it was try to listen, read, understand and then make some useful input on the hoof. I personally am just not mentally nimble enough to do this. I am considering sending my apologies to the next NEC when no papers are circulated in advance since that will obviously mean nothing of any importance is on the agenda.

The main NEC was preceded by another Constitution Review Working Party. The draft of the constitution was at least circulated on the Friday so we had an opportunity to scan through it in advance. Unfortunately I didn’t really get the opportunity to do more than scan and so struggled to absorb and understand 18 pages of “notwithstanding” and “aforementioned clauses excepted” and other legal gobbledegook. The review meeting managed to get about half way through the third draft before it ran out of time.

Under matters arising, I gave a report on the Pan European Parties debate. The ballot papers have been printed and the fulfilment house is making up the packs this week. Ballots will be despatched to the members starting from Monday 18th July and votes need to be returned by 15th August.

The cost of preparing for the ballot has been £4,685.00 (based on an eligible voting membership of 15,519). The costs of actually receiving back and counting the returned ballots depends totally on the turn out. If we get one vote back then it will have cost £5,385.31 for that member to have his (or her) say. If we get 100% turn out then it will have cost £10,195.81 for the ballot. The actual amount will be somewhere between the two extremes!
Junius says: No wonder UKIP is in the red!

Steve Crowther pointed out that the result of the ballot would be binding on all MEPs. Either all would join a P-EP or none would join. Gerard Batten, attending the NEC as one of the MEP Representatives (the other this time was Paul Nuttall) pointed out he would not join a P-EP that did not have a commitment to withdrawal in its articles.
Junius says: And there was us thinking that Gerard would never join a PEP under ANY circumstances!

Nigel gave his leaders report. As per usual, nothing had been circulated in advance. Basically, all’s well with the world and things are going great.
Junius says: Ouch!

Legal matters was its usual depressing report. Least said about it the better.
Junius says: UKIP face ANOTHER day in court this week. Their costs could be in excess of £30,000. More on this later.

Jonathan Arnott has taken over the management of the introduction of the new membership database. He has only been doing this for a couple of weeks so is still getting to grips with the brief. I would have liked some form of written report and hopefully this will eventually be forthcoming. However, I’m not holding my breath!
Junius says: Don't hold your breath. Jonathon 'frightened rabbit' Arnott is about as much use as a chocolate fireplace. If he had just one brain cell, he'd be dangerous.

John Bufton and David Bevan then addressed the NEC. The discussion was a little side tracked by a discussion on whether Wales had a regional organiser and if a dedicated campaign office was essential, (my view on that one is NO it isn't. UKIP spent £50,000 on a "Campaign Office" for the 2009 European Parliament Elections and any value for money analysis would, in my opinion, have concluded it was not money well spent.).

The Welsh discussion then further meandered off the point into a quite interesting exchange of views on UKIP’s position on an English Parliament. Ultimately, the Welsh Question could not be totally lost and the answer was that policy was indeed changed at the last minute and without reference to the Welsh Committee or indeed to the NEC.

The long-standing policy of abolish the Welsh Assembly was changed to one that, in my opinion, fudged the issue to adopt a more populist line which produced a basically reformist position rather than the clear cut abolish. This was justified on the grounds that a majority of those people who bothered to vote supported more powers for the assembly at the referendum which was held just a few days before the elections. UKIP therefore had no choice but to drop the abolish the assembly policy.
Junius says: More twisted Farage logic. So as the Welsh voted for more devolution in the March referendum it would be undemocratic for UKIP to abolish the assembly? So what about the 1975 referendum? British people voted to stay in the EEC. Shouldn't UKIP then support continued EU membership using the result of that referendum as the basis for their argument?

This decision was taken by Nigel. As the UKIP Party Constitution currently stands he was totally within his rights and exercising powers he holds under the constitution. Indeed the Party Leader can adopt, amend or drop any policy he likes without any reference to anyone. He can consult IF he wishes to but is not obliged to take any notice of any advice he may receive. (This was the same reason UKIP supported AV. Nigel decided it was the way to go so that was UKIP's policy!)

The Welsh Committee may indeed feel they had their legs chopped from under them and may feel that UKIP should be seeking to abolish the assembly rather than just reform it. Being a reform party does bring UKIP into line with every other party in Wales so are they all wrong? However, the bottom line is that UKIP Policy is set by Nigel. He decided a more populist reform policy was preferable to an uncompromising abolitionist policy. That is the prerogative of the UKIP Party Leader and there is nothing UKIP Wales can do about it. Of course, if chasing populist votes is the name of the game then every other party in Wales supports the EU. So maybe UKIP Wales needs to change from withdrawal from the EU to reform the EU? Junius says: Confirmation that UKIP is a dictatorship under one man.

As usual, there was a lot of talk but very few or more accurately no real meaningful decisions taken. There is no NEC Meeting in August but I’m sure the Party will somehow manage to survive without our guiding hand. After all, if you look on page 18of your Independence News you will see a comprehensive listing of “Who’s Who in UKIP” and the NEC is conspicuous by its absence!
Junius says: Why are you so surprised? Fuhrer Farage makes all the decisions! We did warn you!

Here is the full report:

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 20:47:09 +0100
From: steve.allison107@btinternet.com
To:
Subject: NEC DIGEST – July 2011

DISCLAIMER : You are receiving this e-mail as you have indicated in the past that you would like to be kept informed of my activities as a member of UKIP’s NEC. If you don’t wish to receive these e-mails please reply with “STOP” in the e-mail subject area. These observations are my personal comments and are not an official record of the NEC Meeting. A formal report and the summary minutes will eventually appear on UKIP’s Website. However, I am a great believer in transparency and so write this e-mail in that spirit but I do self censor these digests based on the following guidelines for deciding if something needs to be considered confidential. Regardless of how open I may wish to be I am not going to publish things that could cause problems later on.

1. Information relating to on-going or potential legal action;
2. Information of a personal nature relating to an individual;
3. Commercially sensitive information;
4. Information which could be considered privileged (eg advice of a solicitor or an accountant);
5. Information which could be used to disadvantage the party.

Hi everyone, sorry this digest is a little late but I just couldn’t summon up enthusiasm to type up my notes on the way home on Monday night. I put this down to the pint and a half I had in the Sherlock Homes before getting on the train and I have been very busy with my real life (visiting clients and earning money) since Monday. To be honest nothing of any great importance was discussed at the NEC, which is about par for the course. No papers were distributed in advance of the NEC so once again it was try to listen, read, understand and then make some useful input on the hoof. I personally am just not mentally nimble enough to do this. I am considering sending my apologies to the next NEC when no papers are circulated in advance since that will obviously mean nothing of any importance is on the agenda.

The main NEC was preceded by another Constitution Review Working Party. The draft of the constitution was at least circulated on the Friday so we had an opportunity to scan through it in advance. Unfortunately I didn’t really get the opportunity to do more than scan and so struggled to absorb and understand 18 pages of “notwithstanding” and “aforementioned clauses excepted” and other legal gobbledegook. The review meeting managed to get about half way through the third draft before it ran out of time.

There was some discussion over a clause that defined the NEC as the party’s Board of Directors and, after the Leader, the party's principal authority. The “after the leader” was vigorously contested by several of the working party and the agreement reached was that the NEC had to have final authority on all admin and financial matters and The leader would participate in these discussions as an equal member of the NEC. The NEC was also keen to maintain final authority over the party manifesto, but accepted in principle that the leader was responsible for the political direction of the party. This actually came up in the main NEC after lunch when the Welsh Assembly Elections were discussed. (More on this later).

The main NEC kicked off with apologies for absence. Michael Zuckerman was not present but it was explained that he considered his term of office expired in March and as he was not seeking re-election, he would not be attending any more NEC Meetings. Rachel Oxley was also absent but as the Chairman announced her resignation from the NEC it was not a surprise she was not at the meeting. The NEC wished both Michael and Rachel the best for the future and expressed their thanks for their service to the party. Rachel’s resignation means that there will be six vacancies on the NEC for election in September, not five as stated in the Independence News. Nominations open for the NEC next week and close in August. The candidates will get an opportunity to speak at the Conference and the vote will be by postal ballot after that.

Minutes of the last meeting went through more or less on the nod. I missed the last meeting so I could not really comment.

Under matters arising, I gave a report on the Pan European Parties debate. The ballot papers have been printed and the fulfilment house is making up the packs this week. Ballots will be despatched to the members starting from Monday 18th July and votes need to be returned by 15th August.

The cost of preparing for the ballot has been £4,685.00 (based on an eligible voting membership of 15,519). The costs of actually receiving back and counting the returned ballots depends totally on the turn out. If we get one vote back then it will have cost £5,385.31 for that member to have his (or her) say. If we get 100% turn out then it will have cost £10,195.81 for the ballot. The actual amount will be somewhere between the two extremes!

Steve Crowther pointed out that the result of the ballot would be binding on all MEPs. Either all would join a P-EP or none would join. Gerard Batten, attending the NEC as one of the MEP Representatives (the other this time was Paul Nuttall) pointed out he would not join a P-EP that did not have a commitment to withdrawal in its articles. Currently there is no P-EP that has such a commitment. It may be that in the event of a “YES” vote in the ballot then UKIP would need to set up its own P-EP in order to have such a commitment enshrined in the P-EP’s constitution.

Doug Denny then gave a brief report on Double nomination. This is sometghing I have been trying to push for a while and the NEC accepted the proposal to co-operate formally with residents' associations and local independents using the "dual candidate" route now available to registered political parties (NB Registered parties NOT individuals). If for example an organisation called "Hartlepool Independents" or “Hartlepool Residents” was registered with the Electoral Commission then UKIP could reach an agreement to field joint candidates. The ballot paper could say "Hartlepool Independent and UKIP Candidate" or “Hartlepool Residents and UK Independence Party Candidate” It costs £250 to register a political party and I’ve suggested to my branch committee that it might be a good move politically to get "Hartlepool Independents" or “Hartlepool Residents” registered and under our control. We could then maybe attract people to stand next May who are not going to join UKIP but who would like to join an “Independent” or “Residents” Party. At the very least, we should consider registering these names to deny them to others!

Nigel gave his leaders report. As per usual, nothing had been circulated in advance. Basically, all’s well with the world and things are going great. The Patrons’ Club continues to expand and the dinner that night was oversubscribed.

Chairman’s report covered the London Elections. Ten Candidates have declared for Mayor and an on-line “primary” is to be held. The names were not mentioned but I assume the London Committee are on top of this? Annual Conference in Eastbourne was mentioned. Nothing new really here apart from a suggestion that the EFD Group might use some of their budget to sponsor at least part of the conference. It was also pointed out that each individual MEP could use their allowances to have a stand at the conference show casing the work they do in their region.

A good idea really and one that would legitimately put EU/MEP money into the conference. Interesting to see how many MEPs take up this suggestion?

A new recruitment brochure was flashed in front of the NEC. This has been sent to the Regional Organisers for comment. It was not passed round to the NEC.

Legal matters was its usual depressing report. Least said about it the better

Finance showed we were in the red but not badly so. The cash flow looked worse than it was because all the costs for the conference were known but ticket sales had not yet started so that was making the situation look worse than it really was. The Deputy Treasure explained in his report that this was because the outgoings on the conference were definite items of expenditure we would be making but ticket sales were only a possible income we might be getting. So, prudence said we had to assume we wouldn’t sell any tickets until the money actually started to come in.

Jonathan Arnott has taken over the management of the introduction of the new membership database. He has only been doing this for a couple of weeks so is still getting to grips with the brief. I would have liked some form of written report and hopefully this will eventually be forthcoming. However, I’m not holding my breath!

John Bufton and David Bevan then addressed the NEC. The discussion was a little side tracked by a discussion on whether Wales had a regional organiser and if a dedicated campaign office was essential, (my view on that one is NO it isn't. UKIP spent £50,000 on a "Campaign Office" for the 2009 European Parliament Elections and any value for money analysis would, in my opinion, have concluded it was not money well spent.).

The Welsh discussion then further meandered off the point into a quite interesting exchange of views on UKIP’s position on an English Parliament. Ultimately, the Welsh Question could not be totally lost and the answer was that policy was indeed changed at the last minute and without reference to the Welsh Committee or indeed to the NEC.

The long-standing policy of abolish the Welsh Assembly was changed to one that, in my opinion, fudged the issue to adopt a more populist line which produced a basically reformist position rather than the clear cut abolish. This was justified on the grounds that a majority of those people who bothered to vote supported more powers for the assembly at the referendum which was held just a few days before the elections. UKIP therefore had no choice but to drop the abolish the assembly policy!

This decision was taken by Nigel. As the UKIP Party Constitution currently stands he was totally within his rights and exercising powers he holds under the constitution. Indeed the Party Leader can adopt, amend or drop any policy he likes without any reference to anyone. He can consult IF he wishes to but is not obliged to take any notice of any advice he may receive. (This was the same reason UKIP supported AV. Nigel decided it was the way to go so that was UKIP's policy!)

The Welsh Committee may indeed feel they had their legs chopped from under them and may feel that UKIP should be seeking to abolish the assembly rather than just reform it. Being a reform party does bring UKIP into line with every other party in Wales so are they all wrong? However, the bottom line is that UKIP Policy is set by Nigel. He decided a more populist reform policy was preferable to an uncompromising abolitionist policy. That is the prerogative of the UKIP Party Leader and there is nothing UKIP Wales can do about it. Of course, if chasing populist votes is the name of the game then every other party in Wales supports the EU. So maybe UKIP Wales needs to change from withdrawal from the EU to reform the EU?

There was some discussion on the MEPs code of conduct and the nine points it covered. Nothing really new was said. Basically the argument has now become circular and old ground is being re-hashed. The Code of Conduct signed by UKIP’s MEP Candidates is too weak and not enforceable. Stable doors and bolted horses come to mind. The lesson for next time needs to be learned and the document needs to clearly spell out what is expected.

The concept of “friends” groups was also discussed, as there is a request to recognise Hindu Friends of UKIP Group. As we have already recognised a UKIP Friends of Israel group, it makes it almost impossible to object to anyone who wants to attach the UKIP name to their own particular cause. Personally I would not officially recognise any “friends” groups as I consider them divisive and completely against UKIP’s supposed policy of not pandering to special interest groups. As it turn out the UKIP Friends of Israel have nearly a full page in the next issue of Independence News. Another dangerous precedent in my opinion. However, what do I know?

David Coburn made a brief presentation on why we should hold the 2012 spring conference in Gibraltar but as Steve Crowther informed the NEC that it was going to be in Skegness this made the whole discussion a bit pointless.

We were now running out of time. Nigel had already left to get ready for the Patrons’ Club pre-dinner drinks at 6.00pm and of course the important people on the NEC also needed to be getting over there promptly.

As usual, there was a lot of talk but very few or more accurately no real meaningful decisions taken. There is no NEC Meeting in August but I’m sure the Party will somehow manage to survive without our guiding hand. After all, if you look on page 18 of your Independence News you will see a comprehensive listing of “Who’s Who in UKIP” and the NEC is conspicuous by its absence!

As usual there were many things said that I have not covered but these are my high point recollections. There will be an official report by the Party Chairman posted on the Members forum in due course.

Sunday, 17 July 2011

Rebranding UKIP: Nigel Farage & Andrew Constantine



Rebranding UKIP?

On January 29th 2011, Steve Uncles of the English Democrats wrote:

"Nigel Farage has commissioned a "Policy and Brand rethink", and has concluded that a proper English Parliament policy and the party name "English Independence Party" are a far more attractive to the voting public then UKIP ?

A UKIP relaunch is planned for the Spring Conference in 2011, as EIP (English Independence Party) and that Nigel Farage has paid in excess of £50,000 to Andrew Constantine for the English Independence Party name etc ."

On July 4th, a campaign for English Independence was launched. The campaign leader is Andrew Constantine. Constantine and one other name on the campaign website http://www.yestoei.org/ also appear as officers of the English Independence Party on the Electoral Commission website.

UKIP's position on an English Parliament was discussed by NEC members, and there was "an interesting exchange of views".

Interesting times!

Friday, 15 July 2011

UKIP Wales Chairman and Mike Nattrass slam Farage over Welsh Assembly betrayal


A very interesting series of emails concerning the Welsh Assembly. We share the concerns of Warwick Nicholson, UKIP Wales Chairman! More proof that Fuhrer Farage holds the membership in contempt! But was that ever in doubt? The membership are there to finance and serve the interests of Farage and his sycophants.

But is it so surprising that Farage supports regionisation? After all, he now supports Pan-European parties and wants his MEPs to join one! And Bloom is already in one! LINK

From: mike nattrass
Sent: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 17:22
Subject: FW: UKIP Wales Statement

I really do this we should all know about this ....... the demotivation of UKIP Wales..

Welsh legs were kicked away by Nigel prior to the election.... changing their policy .... please read (and the Mike quoted is not me)

Mike

MIKE NATTRASS MEP

Date: Thu, 14 Jul 2011 15:04:17 +0100
From: plind.00@btopenworld.com
Subject: UKIP Wales Statement
To: mike.forthepound@btopenworld.com
CC: rich_glos@hotmail.co.uk; dannysparkes@blueyonder.co.uk; pamela708@btinternet.com; duncanrichardson@waitrose.com; bob_maceuk@yahoo.co.uk; stanleyparker66@hotmail.com; fathertone@hotmail.co.uk; steveroffey@live.co.uk; daryl.stanbury@live.co.uk; timcongdon@btinternet.com; Trevor.Colman@ukipsw.org

Thanks for this Mike. I was unaware of the change in party policy and am appalled. This is a major change of policy and ought to be the subject of a party-wide debate . How on earth did a party which I thought opposed regionalisation( which is a key strategy of our EU masters) come to fall in line with what Brussels wants?

Peter

--- On Thu, 14/7/11, MIKE SMITH wrote:


From: MIKE SMITH
Subject: Fw: UKIP Wales Statement
To: "TimCongdon" , "TrevorColman"
Cc: "RICHARDEDWARDS" , "DannySparkes" , "PamBateman" , "duncanrichardson" , "BobMace" , "StanParker" , "FatherTone" , "SteveRoffey" , "DarylStanbury" , "JuliaReid@aol.com" , "TobyMicklethwait" , "PeterLindsay"
Date: Thursday, 14 July, 2011, 11:41


Yet another reason why Farage must go.

Mike(apologies if you have received this directly.)

Keep UKIP Independent!
Say NO to P.E.Ps.
(Pan-European Parties)
Feel free to copy.


----- Forwarded Message -----
From: UKIP Wales Chairman
To: Hugh Moelwyn Hughes
Sent: Thursday, 14 July 2011, 11:13
Subject: UKIP Wales Statement

Dear Chairman,

Please excuse me writing to you in this way, but it has come to our attention that some mis information has been circulating about UKIP Wales, and the events that led up to the recent Welsh Assembly Elections. We feel that it is important that everyone is clear what actually happened.

Since the inception of the Welsh Assembly - an EU inspired devolved Government, with the purpose of breaking the UK into regions - UKIP Wales has been opposed to it.

Initially, the Conservatives and UKIP were the only parties to oppose the Welsh Assembly, until the Conservatives decided they had been wrong all along, and grasped the concept whole heartedly (annoying a great deal of their membership in Wales).

In the 2007 Welsh Assembly Elections, only UKIP opposed the Assembly. UKIP Wales wanted to fight that election on a list only basis, allowing us to fully utilise the PR system for getting elected, but this was over ridden and we stood List and Constituency Candidates (we believe losing us seats).

It was agreed with the NEC in 2010, that this time around, we would fight List only seats - allowing us to focus our message clearly and also utilise the limited resources that we have.

10 days before the manifesto launch in Cardiff, Nigel Farage met with John Bufton, to inform him that the 12 year policy of opposing the Welsh Assembly and Regional Government was over, and that we would now no longer want the abolition of the Welsh Assembly.

This took the rug from beneath our feet, and removed the one clear difference between us and any of the other parties. Now, all of the parties in Wales were backing the Assembly.

In the S4C/YouGov Opinion Poll taken in March, 40% of Conservative Voters said that they wanted to Abolish the Assembly altogether.

17% of all those polled said they would Abolish the Assembly.

In the Referendum on further law making powers for the Welsh assembly, only 35.2% of people actually turned out to vote [Wales has a population of 3 million].

517,132 voted YES

297,380 voted NO

Hardly a ringing endorsement of 12 years of devolution, and clearly showing us that we could target those 297,380 voters - who had just lost a referendum.

On the 21st March, the Manifesto was given to UKIP Wales, with the first words - We will retain the Welsh Assembly.

On the 22nd, after negotiations, it was re worded to we will Renew the Welsh Assembly.

This was a matter of 7 days before the official Manifesto Launch in Cardiff. We were told that Nigel would explain this policy to the candidates in Cardiff the morning of the launch.

All of the candidates were opposed to the change in policy, and many felt that the last year's work - leading up to the referendum and Assembly Elections was now negated.

At the meeting, it was clear that this was the new policy, and it was not going to be changed, so either come with me or don't stand.

Bearing in mind the fact that all of the candidates had by now put a lot of their own money into the campaign, it was not an option to stand down, and the general feeling was, that we would have to make the most of it, and play down and completely skirt around the new policy, and hope that most people would believe that we were still opposed to the Assembly.

Unfortunately, the Conservatives and Labour immediately grasped hold of this change, and could not believe their luck. They made sure they informed their membership, and all who would listen.

It is important to point out here, that all of the candidates were opposed to the policy change. That once the election was over, at the first meeting of the Welsh Committee, the members of the committee unanimously voted the attached resolution, stating that UKIP Wales has reverted to the long standing policy of opposition to Regionalisation of the UK, and the break up of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland through the EU imposed Regional Assemblies. This new policy was not passed by or endorsed by the NEC either.

As members of UKIP - we joined the party, because we believe in Britain, and we want Britain to leave the EU. UKIP should in no way adopt the EU's policies or endorse them.

Sincerely

Warwick Nicholson
Chairman UKIP Wales

On behalf of the UKIP Wales Welsh Committee.

Keep UKIP Independent!
Say NO to P.E.Ps.
(Pan-European Parties)
Feel free to copy.


Thursday, 14 July 2011

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.