UKIP: One Man's Sabotage of a Noble Cause. Part 6

ONE MAN’S SABOTAGE OF A NOBLE CAUSE

Part Six

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

Prepared by Derek Hunnikin
UKIP Membership No. 1428

14. Farage embraces Eurofederalism’s SUBSIDIARITY.
By RODNEY ATKINSON

The former leader of the UK Independence Party, Roger Knapman, has rightly attacked the present leader Nigel Farage (both are MEPs) for signing up UKIP to the EU’s (eurofederalist) idea of “subsidiarity”. Nothing could be more dangerous for a party which claims at least to believe in democratic national sovereignty.

Having come within a few votes of winning the UKIP leadership election of 2000, one of the many reasons why I was happy to leave was the evident impossibility (in a party bereft of credible leadership and intellect) of persuading anyone of any real political substance to join and persuade the electorate that we were capable of joining other parties in a sovereignty coalition in Parliament.

Nigel Farage was by no means the only barrier to such credibility but his lack of intellectual rigour was always going to be a major stumbling block. Today we see why. Farage has never maintained a UKIP principle if he was offered financial incentives to abandon it. (My emphasis - DH). Thus, when Paul Sykes offered millions of pounds, the party effectively abandoned its objective of “gaining power to withdraw from the European Union” and instead said they would adopt the methods of other spineless euro-federalist parties and merely “hold a referendum”.

Now Farage and many of his UKIP colleagues in the European Parliament – in order to absorb another vaguely euro-sceptic party from Romania into their “Independence/Democracy Group” in the European Parliament – have embraced the dangerous eurofederalist principle of “subsidiarity”. This, Farage maintains, is “UKIP (voting) for things if they reduce power at the centre.” Subsidiarity is of course nothing of the sort. Far from ceding powers, subsidiarity is the means by which the central sovereign authority (The European Union) maintains its control. It hands down responsibilities not power. It decides what can be handed down to “lower” levels – like the nation states! - and it decides how many responsibilities are passed on. Indeed by passing down responsibilities to the subservient nation states the Centre saves money. It means the nation states have the burden of administration and have to raise the unpopular taxes – the centre, having passed on responsibilities, will not be reducing its budget, of that we can be sure.

So anyone who supports “subidiarity” is not only a fool but a dangerous fool. This latest surrender of principle by UKIP is of course (surprise, surprise!) in order to raise more money and privileges for their MEPs.

In aid of the same money grab UKIP has even changed its policy on the wasteful, disastrous Common Agricultural Policy – it now seeks to “reform it”! Anyone see any euro pigs flying?

The Ind/Dem group signed the declaration because it hopes to recruit the Roman Party Pin and its MEPs in order to keep its numbers high enough to continue to qualify as a “group”. This qualifies them for a lot of money and facilities paid for by the EU Parliament.

Thanks to the additional funding, the Ind/Dem group, including UKIP, is going to move to new offices next month but such benefits would disappear if enough of its MEPs were to split off.

Roger Knapman wrote in his letter on May 13: “I, and a number of my colleagues, cannot in all conscience accept something which represents a major departure from what we believed to be UKIP’s policy – withdrawal from the EU, a complete rejection of its authority (and subsidiarity) and rejection of the Common Agricultural Policy.”

Well done Roger Knapman! But one good man does not a party make! If he cannot convince a substantial number of UKIP MEPs to leave the Ind Dem group on this matter of fundamental principle then UKIP is surely finished.

------------

15. My experiences of working for Nigel Farage in Brussels.
By JOHN PETLEY

I joined UKIP in 2001, having never before been a member of a political party. I stood as UKIP’s candidate for Lewes in the 2005 General Election. During the campaign, I became acquainted with John Harvey, one of UKIP’s founder members who lives in a village just outside Lewes. It was thanks to John that I was given the chance to work as a researcher in Brussels, starting in January 2006. I went out to Brussels slightly in awe of Nigel Farage, but within a couple of months, my view of him had begun to change. Indeed, by the summer recess of 2006, a mere seven months since coming out to Brussels, I had arrived at the conclusion that Nigel Farage was a liability to the party. There were several reasons for this. Firstly, I was concerned about the rumours about his sexual impropriety, including that he was having an affair with Annabelle Fuller, one of my colleagues in Brussels at the time. Also, and even more worryingly, was the fact that cronyism rather than competence seemed to be what counted. All the researchers who I regarded as competent ended up being thrown out, while others who are totally unsuitable are still working there!

Nigel’s sincerity also leaves much to be desired. I heard from a colleague about a conversation between Farage and Gerard Batten shortly before the 2006 Bromley by-election. It transpired that Farage had discussed a deal with the Tories whereby if they selected the Eurosceptic but not withdrawalist MEP Syed Kamall as their candidate, UKIP would not put up a candidate. On hearing of this, Gerard was incensed and said, “If you don’t stand, I will.” As it happened, the Tories chose Bob Neill, and with Gerard being the ultra-loyalist that he is, he chose not to leak this out. Nigel then announced at a big UKIP meeting the following weekend about how excited he was at being able to contest another by-election. Most people cheered. I was livid.

Indeed, Nigel has lied - to me and to other party members. In March 2007, David Abbott’s $100 donation to what had turned out to be a BNP support group in America was blown up in the national media in March 2007 simply because of David’s criticism of Nigel’s leadership. Before standing for the NEC, David came quite clean about this donation. He did not want to stand for office if it would compromise him. Being so insignificant a sum, a one-off and inadvertent, Nigel and others said it was not a problem. However, when David began to start opposing Nigel on the NEC, Nigel deliberately leaked this out to the press and made it out that David had been seriously involved with the BNP (which wasn’t remotely true). When I challenged Nigel, saying that either he or Mark Croucher were ill-advised to have done this, his reply was "Neither I nor Croucher contacted the Press." The press had also spoken to a person I know who has held senior office in the party about the David Abbott business, and this person told me that when the reporter concerned rang up, he said, "I've just been speaking to Mark Croucher."

Did Nigel lie about the “Bucharest declaration” – which supported subsidiarity (not withdrawal) and reform (not abolition) of the Common Agricultural Policy and which was signed by a number of MEPs including UKIP’s Derek Clark? Certainly, when party members rang up the South East Regional office in anger about the Bucharest declaration, they were told it was nothing to do with Nigel. Only when it became apparent that too many copies of the e-mail proving he had a hand in its wording were in circulation (I still have a copy at home) did the line change.

Nigel also blew his top over things. He once came into my office and ranted at me because I had contacted Mike Nattrass (whose assistant I was for a while) about a dubious amendment to a piece of Parliamentary legislation put forward at Committee stage by Jens-Peter Bonde, Ind Dem Co-president, in the name of the group. A colleague of mine had spotted this amendment and said that UKIP MEPs couldn’t support it, as it was giving more power to the EU (I can’t remember the exact details beyond this). I thought I had better tell Mike, and Mike must have contacted Nigel, who then stormed in and said, “But we always vote against this in Plenary.” I guess Nigel knew I wasn’t happy with UKIP MEPs being in the Ind Dem group. I did not discover until I went to Brussels that NONE of the other MEPs in Ind Dem were withdrawalists. Bonde had been, but after 11 years admitted he had changed his position to “reformist” Interestingly enough, when was the last time anyone heard Nigel talk about outright withdrawal?

If Nigel became aware that any staff were in any way unhappy with him, even if they were not working directly for him, life became very uncomfortable. The atmosphere in the offices from February 2008 to my departure in April gave me an inkling of what it must have been like to live in the Soviet Union – You were always watching your back and every pair of footsteps outside the office door made you feel uneasy. So bizarre that fellow-withdrawalists should be the cause of such a poisonous atmosphere. I have to say that in over two years working in Brussels, I had no animosity from the “nasty” EU. UKIP staff were treated fairly.

My dismissal shows the utterly devious nature of Nigel Farage. He was not directly involved, but his fingerprints are all over it. It all began on Monday 7th April 2008, after Roger Knapman’s “Stop the Treaty” conference in Bristol the previous Saturday which I had gone to. When I got back to Brussels, I tried to access my parliamentary e-mail account, but was unable to do so. I entered the password about 10 times, but was repeatedly blocked. I know that I did not type in my password incorrectly. Having worked in IT before going into political research, I knew hacking when I saw it. The hacker had, fortunately, failed to guess my password, but had locked me out. I spoke to Oumar Dombouya, the man delegated to manage IT affairs for Ind Dem. He re-set my password and set a monitoring facility on my account, as one of my colleagues had had a similar problem, and suspected hacking.

On Thursday afternoon (10th April), Graham Booth came into my office with a print-out of the names, subjects and dates of the e-mails I had sent in recent weeks. He asked me to print out the contents of four of these. After he had left the office, I looked at a couple of these e-mails on my computer, and as I was doing so, the access to my e-mail account suddenly went down. When I eventually was able to bring up the initial screen and try to sign on, once again, I was locked out, just as I had been the previous Monday.

I subsequently discovered that it is within the rules to print out the list (although not the content) of the e-mails sent by EP staff without asking them. However, I did not know this at the time, and refused to take Booth‘s word that this was the case or provide him with the content of these e-mails until I could establish the facts. In view of my suspicions about someone trying to tamper with my e-mails, I think this was quite reasonable. However, his response to my refusal was by saying that in his eyes, this amounted to a “lack of trust” in me. This was the catch-all phrase that can be used to dismiss staff if you don’t like them but can’t find any good reason for sacking them. I had always got on fairly well with Graham until then, and I know Nigel set him up, because he expressed a very negative opinion of one person to whom these e-mails were sent (a branch chairman in the South East) and when I contacted this individual, he said that he had never had any dealings with Graham. Only Nigel could have singled out this e-mail.

Oumar was very helpful initially to my attempts to find out who had been hacking into my account. He traced it to a UK-registered machine (no surprise!) but could not go any further because of intimidation by Hermann Verheirstraten, a senior member of the Ind Dem secretariat. He subsequently kept his distance from me, simply out of fear.

My dismissal was e-mailed to me on Thursday 24th April. This was during a Strasbourg plenary, and I was teleworking at the time. Quite honestly, it was a relief not to have to go back to Brussels. It amazed me to hear afterwards from the late Piers Merchant that Graham Booth had been going round the South West telling people that I (along with two other researchers) were MI5 spies!

Meanwhile, Steve Harris, UKIP’s South East regional organiser, again no doubt mouthing Nigel’s words, has been telling people in the South East that my dismissal was because I was hacking into other people’s e-mails!

I made a statement about this illegal hacking to the Belgian police. I have copies of the documents at home.

Nigel also has failed to develop UKIP as a serious domestic force at home. I heard him speak at Hastings in November 2005, just before I started in Brussels. He said something on the lines of, “Well, UKIP isn’t getting much exposure because the EU isn’t in the news much now, but just wait - it’ll be back on the agenda.” He was proved right with a vengeance when the failed Constitution metamorphosised into the Lisbon Treaty, but he singularly missed the opportunity to put UKIP at the head of the campaign to oppose it. It was always going to be a tough battle to stop the treaty, but it would have put the party back in the consciousness of the electorate. Instead, it was left to an ordinary Party member to launch the “Parish Polls” initiative. On the day of the mass lobby of the House of Commons, Farage was in Brussels. I know, because I heard his voice in the corridor outside my office. This missed opportunity, for which he must take the blame, must represent UKIP’s biggest political mistake in its entire history.

He has also failed to educate the party’s rank and file. Many of those who joined UKIP, myself included, were new to politics. We could see that being in the EU was not in Britain’s best interests, but did not necessarily combine this piece of wisdom with political discernment. I would guess I am not alone in admitting that at one point, I believed that anything in print that says something bad about the EU must be correct. I now realise that this isn’t true, but I still hear of party members who innocently swallow all manner of daft conspiracy theories. Shortly before my sacking, at my own initiative, I wrote a little leaflet, called the UKIP Mythbuster, to try to separate fact and fiction. UKIP had had MEPs for 8½ years by then, and the necessary resources to have produced something of this nature several years earlier, but Farage never took any steps to produce something which would have stopped well-meaning UKIP activists from dropping clangers.

Hard though it is to say it, when I was in Brussels, what I saw in the main was a bungling bunch of amateurs. There were, indeed still are, some honourable exceptions, such as Gerard Batten, but if one incident sticks in my mind which shows how Nigel cannot be taken seriously as a politician, let alone as the No. 1 spokesman for the withdrawalist cause, it was the infamous “Chicken Costume” incident in Strasbourg in 2008. I can vouch for this being Nigel’s idea. When three staff members dressed up as chickens (Gawain Towler, Paul Nuttall and Ralph Atkinson) were escorted from the area near the Hemicycle by the security staff, it led to a very heated but almost surreal press conference, firstly with Gawain (still in his costume minus the chicken head!) and then Nigel, complaining bitterly to the media that the reason we were being treated unfairly in not being allowed to parade around in these outfits was because we opposed the Lisbon Treaty. What nonsense! No wonder the rest of the European Parliament saw UKIP as a bit of a joke.

And the blame for this must be placed at the door of its leader. My experience in Brussels has led me to the conclusion that Farage is an obstacle to British withdrawal from the EU. He arranges these stunts and does his “sound bytes” for the media, but what does this contribute to helping us get out of the EU? He has never been able to sell to the British public any vision of just how much life could improve if Britain regains its independence. His whole focus is in Brussels, where he rules the roost with an iron grip, attacking anyone who he sees as a threat or an independent-minded thinker. What does he care for the hard-working party rank and file in the UK, who have given their money and time for him to live the life of Riley over there? Having seen the European Parliament in action, I left Brussels more convinced than ever that our once great land should regain its independence and withdraw from this miserable failure called the European Union, but I am also convinced that the process would be hastened greatly if UKIP could disown that miserable failure called Nigel Farage.

------------

16. DR. ERIC EDMOND

Elected to UKIP’s National Executive Committee in 2008, and selected by the South West Region as a prospective MEP in the 2009 Euro Elections, Dr.Edmond was educated at Edinburgh & Oxford University where he was taught by Mrs Thatcher's old tutor, Dorothy Hodgkin.

He was in the Civil Service 71/73 during Heath's Common Market Entry - resigned in disgust, and was a Liverpool University Lecturer 74/96.

Later, he was a Bank of England market mathematician 98/03 preparing Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) briefings and working with other central banks.

Here follows a statement by Eric Edmond UKIP MEP Candidate SW Region European Elections in 2009.

What I will do if chosen and elected

• Use the letters MEP to keep the UKIP name and brand in the UK media as much as possible.

• Go to Brussels as little as possible. I would prefer not to go at all like the IRA did when elected to Westminster. The IRA won. I want to win.

• I will use every trick and tactic to obstruct the EU.

• Euro Assembly as Mrs Thatcher always called it is a pointless talking shop and I will show it as that.

• Give all salary to UKIP – some £40k pa.

• I will not employ any members of my family.

• Visit every South West Branch each year.

• Contact & lunch local paper & TV editors all the time – use MEP expenses for that!

What I believe in

• Equality and equal opportunity for all irrespective of colour creed or religion.

• Rule of Law and true honest democracy.

• I will always put my country’s interests before party interests.

• I want our country back for our children.

• I want a country with a reducing population & a rising GDP/capita and standard of living.

• I want UK citizenship to have to be earned by 15 years of honest work and a clean criminal record.

• I want real democracy with frequent referendums when the citizens want one

• I want a country like Switzerland with an EU trade agreement like the Swiss one

• I want to copy the Swiss rules for immigration and asylum.

• I don’t want a country for self-important greedy political careerists.

• I don’t want the EU that tries to run the world – like Napoleon and Hitler.

• I don’t want to be in a 4th Reich or Holy Roman Empire called the EU.

• If we had stayed out of Europe in 1914 my family and the country would have benefited hugely.

My strategy to get out of the EU

The Euro is central to the EU project. It needs a state to back it, hence the Lisbon Treaty. I know where its weakness lies. I will write and talk endlessly about the weakness in the Euro and hence undermine the EU

I will cultivate our core vote of retired people who know what this country was before Major, Blair, and Brown.

I will go for the over-taxed middle class vote

Only the UK parliament can get us out of the EU and I will work to get UKIP MPs elected and force other parties to back us in a repeal of Heath's 1972 European Act

What I promise - I will live up to the motto of the city of my birth, Leith, and I will Persevere to get us out of the EU in my lifetime
------------

The removal of Dr Edmond from the list of prospective MEPs - from Junius. (juniusonukip.blogspot.com).

Note: Dr Edmond has confirmed in an e-mail to me that what you read below is true.

On Friday 13th February 2009 the NEC decided to remove Dr Edmond as an MEP candidate. It is pointed out that Dr Edmond was not informed that he was to be on the NEC agenda. He was not given an opportunity to defend himself, and the South West Committee was not informed of the NEC decision.

The following day Nigel Farage travelled to Lexdrum House to meet the South West Committee.

Those present included:

Jeff Mager, Malcolm Wood, David Bendall, Trevor Colman, Elizabeth Burton and Graham Booth.

It was pointed out in a letter signed by Piers Merchant and Roger Knapman that the meeting was unlawful as the committee members had not been given the designated 21 days notice. As you can imagine Farage became extremely agitated after seeing this letter.

The purpose of the meeting was to de-select Dr Edmond as an MEP candidate. However, this could not be done as the meeting had not been properly constituted.

Farage was forced to admit that the NEC had already decided to remove Dr Edmond from the MEP list. The committee was less than impressed with this revelation and pointed out to a now agitated Farage that any decision to remove Dr Edmond should have been left to them as they represented the people who originally selected him.

Farage then accused Dr Edmond of disrupting NEC meetings. He also claimed that he had been removed from the NEC for reporting UKIP to the Electoral Commission.

Farage was lying.

As a member of UKIP’s NEC Dr Edmond had been jointly and severally liable for UKIP’s debts. He had simply written to the Commission AFTER his removal from the NEC informing them that he was no longer liable for any future debts.

I should add that Dr Edmond had also written to Dr Whittaker requesting details of all financial transaction made during his time on the NEC. Dr Whittaker ignored his request.

It was decided to remove Dr Edmond from the committee. They also confirmed his removal from the MEP list. He has also been banned from holding ANY office within UKIP.

Dr Edmond is set to be thrown out of UKIP when the proposed changes are approved.

Please remember that ALL decisions made at this meeting were unlawful because it was not properly constituted. I would urge all South West members to refuse to accept the decision of this ‘committee’. They should also demand the immediate reinstatement of Dr Edmond as both an MEP candidate and committee member.

------------
Thursday, 10 February 2011

Why Farage's UKIP is not fit for purpose

UKIP needs more members, more talent and more UK effort to even start on the road to getting our country back by repealing the 1972 European Communities Act. Since Farage and his Cabal have taken control of UKIP membership has fallen steadily, activists, the life blood of any political party who disagree with Farage have been kicked out, and sycophantic placemen put into all the important party positions. No serious political party carries on like this. You only see this behaviour in cults where a gullible and uncritical membership are conned by, and blindly supports, a corrupt leadership whose only interest is in lining their own pockets.

Look at those at the top of UKIP enjoying a luxurious cosseted lifestyle set up by the EU but paid for ultimately by UK taxpayers. They are tame, pampered, toothless EU poodles kept in Brussels who give Barroso and the other Eurocrats democratic credibility by enabling them to claim they tolerate anti-EU parties. Its tokenism plain and simple. Ask the brothers or the sisterhood.

The lack of talent in the current UKIP leadership is staggering. Look at the elderly, self satisfied Derek Clark, UKIP MEP for the East Midlands but seldom seen there. Under him UKIP in the East Midlands has gone from the strongest region in the country in the heyday of Robert Kilroy-Silk to one of closed and zombie branches with a few deeply unhappy remaining members. It’s a microcosm of what is happening to UKIP over the whole UK. Godfrey Bloom UKIP MEP for Yorkshire is an embarrassment with his crass public behaviour. Bannerman, Dartmouth and Farage are ex-Tories whose political ambitions were judged by the Tory party to be far in excess of their limited talents and deemed not to be worthy of a safe Tory parliamentary seat. Given the low standard of the average Tory MP that is a pretty damning verdict.

Honesty and integrity can make up for lack of ability but even in that UKIP is lacking. When was Andreasen last seen in the South East region she was elected to represent? Why does Trevor Colman sit in Brussels with Farage's nasty neo-Nazi, mid-European associates. How many relatives of UKIP members died at the hands of the Nazis in the Second World War? Do the ordinary UKIP members know their cult leader associates with neo-Nazi parties in Brussels? I think not. Nikki Sinclaire has shown how effective honesty, integrity and consistency can be in opposing the EU. Not surprising then she was kicked out of UKIP.

Why is Malcolm Pearson, Farage's puppet leader of UKIP, a man who at the last General Election campaigned for the Tories, still in the UKIP ruling group? Could this happen in any other party? I don't think so.

Then we have ex-chairman Nuttall MEP who counts success as defeating the BNP for 4th place in elections. UKIP is supposed to be about getting us out of the EU and the best way to handle the BNP is to ignore them! Comrade Nuttall would do better to address the needs of the jobless of Merseyside and try and recruit them for UKIP.

There is also UKIP's top management, Crowther and Duffy. No significant management track record and no organisational ability seems to sum them up. The current NEC is full of wannabe MEPs or more correctly wannabe on the gravy train who are therefore beholden to Farage for preferment.

There are many able and talented people who want us out of the EU but how many will want to join a cult party which measures its success by the leader’s appearances and applause on Question Time (QT). It’s only MPs in Westminster that can get us out of the EU. This needs organisation and hard work in local elections addressing the issues of jobs, schools and health that impinge on peoples lives and earns their trust to vote for UKIP when it matters. It needs a leader who attracts people in, not one who kicks people out. Until Farage and his clique go this will not change. UKIP numbers will continue to decline, the sycophants will squabble about getting onto the EU gravy train, the BBC will continue to massage Farage's vanity with QT invites etc., and UKIP will continue to slide into the garbage can of history.

I pray I will someday see our country free from the EU but clearly Farage's UKIP will play no part in our freedom struggle.

All the stuff I have ever written about Farage and his cabal over the last 3 years is in my blog click http://ukiptruth.blogspot.com/ to read.

------------

As a former UKIP member said: “A party that encourages half truths and anonymous lies that seek to destroy a member’s good name forfeits its claim to loyalty from its members.”

------------