#0129* – UKIP + EFD = Fully Funded EUthenasia for UKIP. EUkip REBORN!
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable!
The corruption of EUkip’s leadership,
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
UKIP + EFD = Fully Funded EUthenasia for UKIP.
EUkip REBORN!
EVEN SPEECHES IN FAVOUR IN BERLIN CLICK HERE!
Hi,
Recently you will have seen cautionary information regarding UKIP being duped regarding Pan EU Political Parties and selling out their principles and Steve Allison whom this blog cautioned against as Farage’s man in disguise re. the NEC Election as with Mick McTrough, Elizabeth Burton and others whose presence on the NEC as puppets and muppets brings UKIP into disrepute.
We also cautioned regarding Steve Allison as inappropriate as Campaign Manager for Tim Congdon’s leadership bid.
Older, Wiser, Sadder
General
Position in UKIP: NEC member 2010 – 2013
UKIP Branch: Sedgefield
Full Name: Steve Allison
Posts: 252
How very apposite – I wonder howmany other people will be Older, Wiser & Sadder having permitted people like McTrough, Duffy, Denny, Allison, Williams, Curtis, Clark, Burton, Batten, Smith, Croucher, Wood (Malcol), Andreasen seize control to ensure it remains the Farage Fan Club at the cost of UKIP Principles, values, manners and ethics.
For those who wish to know the facts and avoid the spin you may care to commence, before reading on, to CLICK HERE or CLICK HERE and HERE and also HERE
I am heavily reliant for quotes below on Wikipedia which I show in Green, for Barbara Booker aka Barboo which I show in blue, any comments by UKIP members I show in purple – I hope this makes the post easier to follow.
In consideration of UKIP forming a Pan EU Political Party as The EFD or similar – which, particularly in the light of Derek Clark’s betrayal of Britain and Andreasen’s disinterest in Britain working for Spain and herself and Farage’s speech in Berlin at the Reinbeckhalle on Saturday (for details CLICK HERE).
With comprehensive details and text + Pictures CLICK HERE
So let us consider the difficulties which for starters include the concept that to gain back Tax Payers’ money from The EU any elected Party MUST decide to form a Pan EU Political Party – Thus not just strengthening The very enemy they seek to dismantle but in democratic terms fore-swearing their rights of free speech and self determination as they MUST – having first jumped through the malign EU Hoop next accept INSTRUCTION on how they may spend the money!
Controversy
Europarty funding goes to Europarties and stays with Europarties: the funding cannot be used for the funding of other political parties and in particular national political parties.
[8] National political parties disinclined from joining Europarties are thereby disadvantaged.
[18] 25
Members of the European Parliament petitioned the
European Court of Justice, arguing that this contravened the EU’s stated values of pluralism and democracy. The case was rejected after eighteen months.
[19][20] A closely related case fought by the French Front National, the Italian Lega Nord, and the Belgian Vlaams Blok (now Vlaams Belang) was appealed
[21] and rejected.
[22]
Clearly there are many reasons to fore-swear the malign diktat of the central dictator committee’s bribes – that they are bribes would of course be reason enough to the principled and reject the entire concept for honourable men and women, but they are bribes and we are talking about self serving politicians!
Regulations
As of 1 November 2008, the regulation governing Europarties is Regulation (EC) No 2004/2003 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 November 2003,
[8] as later amended
[9] under codecision (see above). According to that regulation’s European Commission factsheet,
[10] for a party to become a Europarty it must meet the following criteria:
- it must have legal personality in the Member State in which its seat is located.
- it must observe the founding principles of the European Union, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.
- it must have participated, or intend to participate, in elections to the European Parliament.
- it must have in at least one quarter of the Member States, one or both of the following:
-
- either it must have received at least 3% of the votes cast in each of those Member States at the most recent European Parliament elections.
- or it must already be represented by Members, whether Members of the European Parliament for those states, or Members of the national Parliaments of those states, or Members of the regional Parliaments of those states, or Members of the regional Assemblies of those states.
- it must publish its revenue and expenditure annually.
- it must publish a statement of its assets and liabilities annually.
- it must provide a list of its donors and their donations exceeding €500.
- it must not accept anonymous donations.
- it must not accept donations exceeding €12,000 per year and per donor.
- it must not accept donations from the budgets of political groups of the European Parliament.
- it must not accept more than 40% of a national political party’s annual budget.
- it must not accept donations from any company over which the public authorities may exercise a dominant influence, either by virtue of their ownership of it, or by their financial participation therein.
- it must get at least 25% of its budget from sources other than its European Union funding.
- it must submit its application by the 15 November before the financial year that it wants funding for.
All that boils down in real terms to – YOU WILL comply with OUR TERMS that we have decided to IMPOSE and if you decline:
Firstly you will miss out on a relatively unaccountable free handout of other peoples’ money for YOU to feather YOUR nest and in so doing strengthen the corrupt aims of The Malign and malevolent EU.
Secondly if you do NOT do as we tell you we will imply that you opposed these basic terms:
it must observe the founding principles of the European Union, namely the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.
Right lets look at this cleverly worded blackmail by The EU!
The EU dishonestly claims:
it observe the founding principles of the European Union,
It does NOT they are merely flowery words that The EU completely ignores!
namely the principles of liberty,
Even Prisons offer periods of Free Association – there are no fundamental Freedoms on offer in this EU Political Prison – The Gulag is set up to ensure The State functions as a supra National Empirate enforced upon the largely opposed people – due to standards of education and a propaganda budget of £2.4Billion stolen from the prisoners annually – the balance of the population are so ignorant they have no understanding of the evil being done to them or they are on the Political Gravy Train enjoying the bribe culture and are bought and paid for.
democracy,
The EU pretends it has a Democratic deficit when in fact it has made it abundantly clear it has absolutely no knowledge or understanding of the basic tenets of democracy!
respect for human rights
This of course is a bare faced lie as even The United Nations, for which I have almost as little respect as I have for The EU or the rest of the New World, Globalist dissorder being managed to control through chaos – The UN clearly states in its Foundation Charter that a fundamental human right is the right of self determination.
There is absolutely no right of Self Determination in The EU where as you know The French, The Dutch & The Irish ALL voted and rejected membership of The EU and engagement with the New Constitution Lisbon Treaty to the horror of the Dictator Committee of apparatchicks and their vassals – such that they blocked other Countries having the opportunity of Self Determination and lied to achieve their corrupt outcome.
They have no respect for Human Rights – one need only study the new codex of law ‘Corpus Juris’ based upon the laws of The Emperor Justinius with an overlay of code Napoleon to produce a ‘better fairer system of REPRESSION’ I quote ‘CORPUS JURIS – Mireille Delmas-Marty EU Publication for DrG Finance ISBN 2-7178-3344-7 end of para 3 page 40
and fundamental freedoms,
What fundamental Freedoms do we enjoy that we did not enjoy or more to the point wished for as British citizens that are in some way granted that were precluded under British law had we wished for them and enjoyed our fundamental human right of SELF DETERMINATION.
and the rule of law.
The EU has no legitimate Laws as it has enacted a huge series of diktats and due to the total lack of democratic input and the fact that only a minority are in favour of membership they have no validity.
Further when edward Heath negotiated and led these United Kingdoms backwards into this arcane concept he has admitted both on TV in an interview with David Frost and subsequently repeated on the floor of The House of Commons and thus on record in Hansard that he and his Cabinet deliberately lied to Parliament and the peoples and also it seems The Monarch when he stated that ‘This will lead to no essential loss of Sovereignty’ – he has confirmed that he lied because he believed that the people would vote NO in the referendum if they knew the truth.
Many people believe the people voted NO anyway, despite his criminal deception and thus at the time TREASON. Many believe it was by lumping of Constituencies to fudge a result!
Under UK Law at the time which was upheld by The Treaty of Vienna on International Treaties it clearly states that should one party mislead another to obtain their agreement, acquiescence or compliance to a contract or agreement said contract or agreement shall be deemed null and void.
Thus Ipso Facto Britain’s signature to The Treaty of Rome is by any stretch of the imagination NULL & VOID.
Thus since every single EU encroachment since that unlawfull document is merely an ammendment founded upon the pre supposition that the foundation document was sound there is no stronger argument against Britain’s membership of the centralised alien and malign committee dictatorship of The EU than the simple fact that there is prima facie evidence that our entire participation is Ultra Vires.
WE ARE NOT LEGALLY MEMBERS OF THE EUROPEAN UNION
Now consider the excellent fisking of Steve Allison’s confused statement lifted earlier from The UKIP members’ forum – the site where those too timerous to discuss their views and promote and defend them crano rectally retentatively navel gaze from the inside! An incestuous and heavily moderated site for those of little political nouse and less competence to impress eachother in a vacuum!
Steve Allison on pan-EU parties
Junius has posted comments said to have been made by Steve Allison on the UKIP members’ forum, following an NEC meeting at which a presentation on forming a pan-European party to access additional EU funding was discussed.
The Euro-sceptic Parties, like UKIP, tend to shy away from forming organisations that are seen as taking them deeper into the system. As illustrated by the almost frenzied rush by some sections of UKIP to ensure our party is not contaminated by receipt of such money! This means Euro-sceptic groups don’t access the funding that is available and leave the field clear for the pro-EU organisations to grab all the cash.
UKIP Members seem to fixate on the requirement that to draw down such funds the party must “observe the founding principles of the European Union”.
However, those ‘founding principles’ are the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.
Which of those principles does UKIP Object to? Obviously we have a different interpretation of them from other parties and nations, and we understand and practise them in a very different way from Continental Europeans. But we, as a party do support these principles. There is no requirement for example to support any other aims of the EU, there is no requirement to support political union or greater integration. The irony is that UKIP could take EU Money and use it to fight political union and further integration in the name of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.
So it’s not that such funding isn’t available to Euro sceptic groups. It is just that such groups chose to not access the funding due to some mistaken idea of ideological purity.
The phrase “Cutting off one’s own nose to spite one’s face” comes to mind here.
Paid by whom and with what?
One of the carrots of accepting membership of a pan-European political party would be funding for a “think tank” to develop policy. This would probably be based in the UK with a big slice of 1,300,000 Euro Budget. This money could be used to research positions, produce policies, print and distribute booklets, etc. It could also be used to fund conferences and meetings. Yes I know its a buy off (or a sell out?) but its a lot of money that UKIP could use to fight the EU with.
I rather like the irony of using the EU’s money to fight against it. At least we’d be getting some of our own money back.
If you think about it UKIP does only exist because of the EU! At the risk of breaking NEC Confidentiality I will say there was extensive discussion about this at the NEC and a lot more information is still outstanding. I went into the meeting pre-disposed to fight the “Pan European Party” to my last breath, but I listened to the presentation, I asked questions and received answers and I agreed at NEC that the party should investigate the outstanding issues and the NEC receive another report.
The proposal was then to present this report at a special meeting open to all UKIP Members in London on October 9th. The morning session could have been an official Leadership Hustings and an afternoon session on the pan European party proposal. This would have allowed three or even four hours of informed discussion rather than just the very brief debate and prepared speeches to the motion at conference.
Unfortunately I understand the amendment to the motion was defeated and so the Special General Meeting will now not take place. I think this is a real shame as it would have allowed informed decision making and not knee jerk responses
I have not agreed to the proposal but what I have said is that it doesn’t need to be rejected out of hand without some really serious consideration. There is some serious money on the table and UKIP needs every penny it can get. The key question I asked, and received assurances to, was that being in such a party would in no way mean the end of UKIP, we would still be UKIP and would continue to campaign and stand in elections as UKIP.
The whole thing is by no means a done deal but there are some very attractive carrots on offer and I for one find the irony very attractive in taking EU Money to spend fighting the EU.
Assuming the comments are genuine and accurately reported, they are worth considering in detail as the subject is fundamental to UKIP’s future. The essential points made by Steve Allison are:
quote (Steve Allison)
UKIP Members seem to fixate on the requirement that to draw down such funds the party must “observe the founding principles of the European Union”. However, those ‘founding principles’ are the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law. Which of those principles does UKIP Object to? . . . . we, as a party do support these principles. There is no requirement for example to support any other aims of the EU, there is no requirement to support political union or greater integration.
unquote
Steve Allison would appear to be remarkably poorly informed here. If UKIP members are indeed fixated as he suggests it is because they have heard their MEPs, particularly Nigel Farage, say over and again that the party rejects the state funding of pan-EU political parties precisely because qualification requirements conflict with UKIP aims and principles. Is SA not aware that in 2004 MEPs Farage, Titford and Booth even took the European parliament and Council of Ministers to the European Court in an attempt to kill off the funding legislation? You can’t spend years saying something is dangerous and unacceptable, then suddenly present it as an attractive carrot and expect to carry the membership with you. See the following:
Press release from Jeffrey Titford MEP, 26.7.00:
“The European Union plans to fund only those parties which “support the principle of European integration“.
UKIP and EDD press release 18.2.03: The European proposals would require parties in receipt of funding to accept both the primacy of European Union law, and the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights. Jeffrey Titford said,
“It can hardly be considered democratic to require parties to accept a certain political position, in this case acceptance of the supremacy of the European Union and its bodies, in order to secure funding“.
Daily Telegraph 20.2.03:
“Mr Farage said he was proud to be disqualified from receiving such funding. “I most certainly don’t respect the primacy of EU law and I think the charter (of Fundamental Rights) is downright dangerous“
Nigel Farage to CIB Liberty News, Spring 2003:
“in order for a political party to be registered it must ensure that the statute and activities of the European political party respect the basic purposes of the Union with regard to freedom, democracy, human rights, fundamental freedoms and the rule of law“.
“This immediately presents difficulties for parties that disagree with the objectives of the European Union . . . the UK Independence Party would immediately fall foul of the Commission because one of its aims is British withdrawal from the Union. It also disagrees with the principles of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and does not recognise the supremacy of EU laws over those of Great Britain, making it a complete non-starter under the new rules!”
Europarl verbatim report of proceedings 18.6.03, Statute and financing of European political parties:
“Booth (EDD) – Two recent opinion polls in the UK gave figures of 92% and 96% as wanting to leave the European Union, and yet this proposal would deny funding to any party who should dare to represent the views of that very large proportion of its citizens“.
BBC Radio 4 ‘World at One’ 27.6.03: Nigel Farage is an MEP for the UK Independence Party. As a member of a party who wouldn’t receive any of the new money he’s furious about the proposals: (Farage)
“If you support the political union, if you support the European project you’ll get money, if you don’t you won’t get money“.
UKIP press release, 28.1.04 ‘UKIP MEPs take Euro Parliament to court over state funding of parties’ – UK Independence Party MEP Nigel Farage said,
“We are opposed on principle to the idea of state funding of political parties, either nationally or at a European level. It is not an appropriate use of tax-payers money. As if that was not bad enough, the legislation adopted by the European Parliament and the Council of Ministers will discriminate against certain political parties. It requires the recipients of European funding to subscribe to pre-set political ideals, such as agreement with greater European integration“.
Europarl verbatim report of proceedings 8.3.04, Statute and financing of political parties at European level:
“Farage (EDD) I do not think there is any evidence that suggests that the voters in my country or in any other country are happy for their money directly to finance political parties at a European level. I have also felt, ever since Nice and Article 191, that this idea that you qualify if you conform to the democratic principles of the Union is potentially a dangerous one. I have some difficulty with the issue of the rule of law. It seems to me that, post-Constitution, some in this place – and I am one of them – will not recognise that new rule of law because we will only be able to leave the EU on terms of the EU“.
UKIP Letter from Strasbourg 22.11.05:
“Pan EU Political Parties. Within the Independence and Democracy Group, two parties have emerged. However, UKIP joined neither of them, because there are no other moderate parties in the parliament that want to leave the EU and also, because UKIP disapproves of state funding for parties, which is to be made available to these new combinations“.
UKIP press release 3.2.06:
“Snouts deeper in the trough – the European Parliament’s Budgetary Control Committee last night rubber-stamped a massive 19% hike in taxpayers’ money to be gifted to ‘European Political Parties’. Tom Wise MEP (UKIP) denounced the decision. The concept of European Political parties is itself a travesty designed mainly to raise more cash for pro-European political forces. To qualify, parties represented in the European Parliament from at least 7 different countries have to subscribe to a single political platform. This naturally discriminates against those parties that believe in national self-determination“.
* * *
A question that could be put to Nigel Farage at the leadership hustings is, were he and UKIP’s other MEPs lying over that five year period when they kept saying UKIP would be denied funding because of its stance on EU integration, or did they just not understand the funding criteria? And whichever it was, how are members to know they’re not lying / misunderstanding now in their presentation to the NEC?
* * *
quote (Steve Allison)
One of the carrots of accepting membership of a pan-European political party would be funding for a “think tank” to develop policy. This would probably be based in the UK with a big slice of 1,300,000 Euro Budget. This money could be used to research positions, produce policies, print and distribute booklets, etc. It could also be used to fund conferences and meetings. Yes I know its a buy off (or a sell out?) but its a lot of money that UKIP could use to fight the EU with.
unquote
No, UKIP most definitely could not use the money to fight the EU! The regulations governing the funding of political parties at European level (pan-EU parties) and their associated political foundation ‘think tanks’ specifically rule out the money being used by national political parties. To form a pan-EU party UKIP would have to agree a common political programme with parties from six other member states, and the funds could only be used to further objectives set out in that programme. ‘Withdrawal’ would not feature in it since no other EFD members want to leave the EU, and the research, policies, booklets, meetings, conferences, etc, would all have to promote the new party’s aims of ‘improving’ the EU.
quote (Steve Allison)
The key question I asked, and received assurances to, was that being in such a party would in no way mean the end of UKIP, we would still be UKIP and would continue to campaign and stand in elections as UKIP.
unquote
This is only partially true. Legislation currently being steered through the EP’s Constitutional Affairs Committee (AFCO) by the LibDem MEP Andrew Duff includes a draft proposal for 25 seats at the 2014 Euro-elections to be contested by pan-European parties on an EU wide basis. If by then UKIP is in a pan-European party it will not be able to contest these seats as UKIP. Furthermore, although European Party funding cannot be used for campaigning by national parties the reverse does not apply, and UKIP funds can and no doubt will be used for the new European Party’s campaign. Obviously, 25 seats will be just the thin end of the wedge, and at future EU elections UKIP members can expect to see ever more of their party’s funds diverted into the election campaigns of EFD (or whatever they call themselves) MEPs.
Don’t say you haven’t been warned!
May I take the liberty of reitterating Barbara Booker’s excellent conclusion in my own name!
Don’t say you haven’t been warned!
Reclaim YOUR Future
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
(IF You Have No INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance Candidate)
to Reclaim YOUR Future
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Like this:
Like Loading...
Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W)
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings 
Originally Posted by Streetwalker 
Ukip-vs-EUkip 