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
No comments:
Post a Comment