Nikki Sinclaire MEP on enlargement of The EU!!!!
Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 25/07/2011
Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 25/04/2011
For More Facts On PEPP CLICK HERE
To View The Rules CLICK HERE
This vote is about three vital opportunities for our Party. First, this vote is about the Party being able to pay for a wide range of activities in the UK using, effectively, UK Taxpayer’s money returned to us by the EU.
Secondly, this vote will provide the Party with the services of a Think Tank which will enable us, for the very first time, to match our opponents in strategy and policy-formation. If we are to be a serious contender in British politics, this is a vital strength we must add.
Thirdly, this vote is about denying our enemies approximately £1,300,000 in funding which will otherwise be divided up between them.
Above all, this vote is about building upon our successes from 2009 to today to displace the Liberal Democrats and win the European Elections in 2014.
UKIP has lost its ONLY MEPs with any integrity.
Vote “NO” if you want UKIP to languish on the fringe of politics.
Vote “YES” for progress in our noble cause.
and creating a professional Think Tank to enable us
– for the first time – to produce policy papers explaining our messages.
Starting from our current, comfortable set of working relationships with our prospective allies, we are advised that the ANNUAL allocation of funds would be:
For the political party € 850,000 (£733,000 approx) and;
For the Think Tank € 500,000 (£431,000 approx)
That gives €1,350,000 (£1,164,000 approx.) gross per year.
Deducting administration and salaries leaves about € 600,000 (£518,000 approx) for the political party and €350,000 (£219,000 approx) for the Think Tank.
UKIP might expect, with the size of its delegation, to get approximately half that sum every year. This would mean that, EVERY YEAR, we would have the benefit of the sum of up to € 475,000 (£400,000 approximately) from the political party and the Foundation. To put this in perspective, the 2010 general election cost us some £350,000. We currently have nothing like that at our disposal.
By the end of this Parliament we will have had access to more than £1 million. This is a sum which we scarcely dream of raising by conventional methods.
The grant is used to meet expenditure linked to the objectives set out in the European party’s political programme, such as:
Publications, studies, advertisements
Administrative, personnel, travel costs
Campaign costs connected to European elections.
For example, we might use it to produce a flyer for the UK’s young female voters on the effects of the recent European Court of Justice decision which will drive up their insurance premiums – in the name of equality!
Given its direct connection to EU Law, we can pay for it under the publications heading.
As part of EFD we already have to conform to similar rules about what we can do and how. It has not caused a problem – and it will not cause a problem if we take this grant.
We cannot use the grant to meet expenditure such as:
Campaign costs for referenda1
Funding national parties, candidates
Debts and debt service charges.
Much may be made of the exclusion of “direct or indirect funding”. But when 2014 comes along, we can use a big chunk of our share for the campaign costs of that year’s European Elections quite legitimately.
The EU itself makes that clear.
In other years imagine what we could do with our grant to campaign on issues such as the European Arrest Warrant, European Court of Human Rights’ judgments or how the EU and the Treaties undermine our immigration policy.
Right now we simply do not have the money.
Given that at least 75% of our laws are now made in Brussels, almost every subject that UKIP campaigns upon is affected by EU legislation.
That means that we can direct this money to help us in the UK.
Indeed it is probable that 90% of the funds can be so utilised.
On top of that we will have the Think Tank (Foundation).
We would be able to match the likes of Open Europe and the Tories in producing high quality research and policy proposals.
We can produce strategic material to set the agenda for political debate in the UK instead of always being the party which has to react to others’ ideas.
We can use Think Tank funding to give professional presentations to the press.
In short, a Think Tank will help UKIP to punch above its weight and mix it with the Old Parties at an entirely new level.
If we are to match our ambitions to become the third party of British politics and winners in 2014, this is a vital step to attain the professionalism so roundly endorsed by our membership in the 2010 leadership election.
All this does require a small amount of matched funding: as little as 10% of the amount. And initially we only have to raise a share proportionate to our size – and of that only a small proportion has to be found up front. The rest can be found as individual projects are brought forward. We can achieve that.
If conditions or the Regulations change unfavourably, we can leave at any time, just as one can leave an alliance or a coalition.
There is, in addition, another side to these grants. Our €1,350,000 (£1,170,000 approx) comes from a finite pot. Presently 10 parties take money from that pot. If we become number 11, then the other ten parties lose, on average, €135,000 (£117,000 approx).
So, there are benefits to UKIP which at one and the same moment harm our enemies: a double-whammy with our enemies in the middle!
Just as the Salvation Army used to go around pubs and sell their publications with the slogan “Take the Devil’s money to do God’s work!”, so might we take what is after all UK Taxpayer’s money and use it to bring us victory in our noble cause. Would you rather that YOUR money is used to fund our enemies’ campaigns or to fund UKIP’s?
If you think that this money might just come in a bit handy to help destroy Federalism and Integration, vote ‘YES’!
The ‘NO’ campaign alleges that the UKIP brand would be diluted. This is nonsense.
The Conservatives are part of a European Political Party. Which is better known in the UK: ‘The Conservative Party’ or ‘The Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists’?
Indeed has anyone ever heard of ‘The Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists’? Of course not, because the Tories still fight under their own name and their brand is not diluted in any way.
The ‘NO’ campaign claims taking part in a European Political Party is ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’.
But surely to do so is no more ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’ than taking part in European Elections or, once elected, taking your seat and being an MEP.
Every month our MEPs receive substantial sums. Are they thereby taking the ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’ Shilling? No! The money for the party is no more ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’ than the money paid to MEPs.
And, remember, using this money, they are daily carrying the fight to the very heart of the EU in Brussels and Strasbourg.
Stuart Agnew’s ONLY National coverage has been for his corruption, dishonesty and fraud!
The ‘NO’ campaign says that “accepting its money is corrupt”. So is the ‘NO’ campaign saying that our MEPs and their staff are corrupt?
Of course not.
That they make this allegation merely demonstrates the absurdity of their argument.
As we see below, some time ago, after proper debate, the Party took the pragmatic decision to fight and take up seats in the European Parliament. It did so notwithstanding the ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’ nature of the institution.
Who now says this was the wrong decision?
May I remind the author that at the UKIP Party Conference there was a very clear debate against joining Pan EU Political Parties – Yet just like the EU those who hope for self enrichment seek to overturn the Party Members’ Decision to seek a different result.
And some claim UKIP MEPs have not adopted the morays of The EU!
No one, for the simple reason that it provides the noble cause we all serve with an enormous platform to fight the enemies of British Independence
– a platform which the gerrymandered Westminster electoral system denies us.
Taking what some called the ‘Federalist’ and ‘Integrationist’ Shilling has boosted our cause exponentially.
The ‘NO’ campaign alleges UKIP will have to pay tax to HMRC on this money. They are wrong. The only tax that a European Political Party will have to pay is VAT.
A TAX Dummy!
The ‘NO’ campaign contends that this money may not be used for UK political activity.
This too is nonsense.
As we have seen much of our grant may properly and legally be directed at our target audience.
YES THEY ARE THAT STUPID!
Moreover, does anyone imagine that the Tories take all their money (the best part of €2,000,000 or £1,750,000 approx) and spend it all in Brussels? Only the utterly naive would credit such an idea.
The contention of the ‘NO’ campaign that we must concentrate on the UK media to the exclusion of Brussels is, once again, deeply misguided.
The ‘NO’ campaign asserts that a European Political Party might endorse integration. Hardly, as we would have a major part in drawing up the party’s political programme. Are we likely to endorse a programme encouraging integration?
I believe my point is clearly made!
The absurdity of the question demonstrates just how weak are the ‘NO’ campaign’s arguments.
It is suggested that a European Political Party would somehow lead to the end of national political parties.
Ask yourself this: is the Conservative Party likely to abolish itself and campaign in UK elections as ‘The Alliance of European Conservatives and Reformists’?
A moment’s thought reveals that this too is absurd.
The Tories would be committing political suicide.
We may think the Tories stupid, but they are not that stupid.
The Regulations make it clear we can use this money to campaign for European Elections.
In 2014 we aim to come first.
How are we to fund that ambition?
Will access to several hundred thousand Euros help or hinder us?
As to raising money, the EU’s rules on donations are, compared to the UK’s, short, simple and elastic.
Thus we shall be able to receive donations from expatriates and others who are otherwise prohibited in the UK.
This will provide a new, untapped resource.
And, remember that UKIP will be one of the big beasts in this party and so will be able to call the shots.
Already we know that Bannerman is making further overtures to the Tories as has Andreassen in the past and it seems likely the dim wit Wee Willy temper tantrum will also jump ship. Then since John Bufton’s aims and values are those of UKIP members rather than the corrupt EFD and Farage it seems likely he will have the integrity to leave.
I doubt Batten will have the integrity as he lacks both integrity and moral conviction and I would guess that those outside of The EFD whether calling themselves UKIP or not would rather he did not join them as he is both untrustworthy and of very little merit or competence.
Finally, are we about to compromise our principles, as the “NO” campaign suggest?
The Regulation says that a European Political Party must subscribe to the principles of liberty, democracy, respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, and the rule of law.
UKIP might be said to support these principles more honestly and more comprehensively than any other party in the UK or, indeed the EU itself.
This issue is the third substantive battle within UKIP between the purists and the pragmatists. Taking the money is the pragmatic option. It has prevailed twice before – and if the party is to succeed, then the pragmatists need to win again.
Yes twice before the pond life and filth have demeaned UKIP and yet again they seek self enrichment at the expense of the Party and principles –That is not pragmatism, that is prostitution.
In 1994 there was furious debate about the proposal to fight seats for the EU Parliament elections but not to take them up. Then in 1998 we agreed to take our seats if elected.
One of those who left the party in disagreement over these very issues was Gerard Batten. Now an MEP, Gerard is a valued colleague, using his position (and money from the EU’s taxpayers) to fight – hard and effectively – for this great cause.
How many of UKIP’s members would seriously oppose those decisions now?
The next step was to form part of a Group.
Many saw it as a betrayal. Now, not only has it helped financially but it boosts speaking time and thus our profile: would UKIP and Nigel Farage have any hope of such exposure if he was not a Group leader?
We know that the Parliamentary authorities try every legal trick in the book to censor and silence Nigel.
Being in a Group means they can no longer freeze him out at key moments.
Do read the column inches in the press and the near total lack of National coverage of UKIP of any gravitas – because none is earned!
Above all, the formation of an opposition Group was exactly what the Europhiles and our enemies didn’t want us to do.
That equally applies to creating a new political party in the Parliament. It is exactly the step our enemies do NOT want us to take – which is why we MUST take it.
Winston Churchill said in a speech in April 1941:“Give us the tools and we will finish the job”
That clarion call might have been crafted with this issue, this Party and this moment in history in mind.
This vote is about giving the Party the tools to finish the job.
It is clearly NOT the Tools at Fault but the corrupt leadership.
1 As a result of a vote in committee in March 2011, it is very likely that the restriction on using grants for referenda will be totally abolished. This is particularly relevant to any referendum held under the proposed European Union Bill 2011 currently going through Parliament. If a sovereignty referendum is called, all three of the old parties will in future be able to use this money to campaign for a “YES” vote. If we do not take this money we will be severely at a disadvantage in such a referendum. If we join up, however, we can use their funds to fight for a “No Transfer” vote.
My Word YOU have Gone Native – YOU can not be real quoting EU woffle as justification for your foolish claims.
YOU imply that EU committees have some relevance in the law making process – SINCE WHEN!
To View the original CLICK HERE
For More Facts On PEPP CLICK HERE
To View The Rules CLICK HERE
Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 28/09/2010
here is a video I found on YouTube of a radio interview of Nikki Sinclaire MEP doing the job UKIP MEPs were elected to do – she has just taken 30 residents of her constituency to the EU Parliament to protest for their Human Rights stolen by membership of The EU.
You will also hear details of The Petition Campaign for an EU Referendum she has rolled out right across Britain already despite endless cowardly and dishonest attacks by the dog in the manger brigade masquerading as ‘leadership’ and its parasites in UKIP – ashamed at being exposed by her integrity that refused to collude with racists, extremists, thugs and anti Jewish political trash just to put money in a couple of peoples’ pockets.
Nikki Sinclaire refused to sit with the corrupt EFD in the EU Parliament and for that she was lied to, lied about and betrayed by UKIP’s leader and the nere do well garbage that has been placed on the party NEC.
Sinclaire not only stood her ground but left UKIP to mud wrestle in its gutter whilst she got on with the job she was elected to do.
Posted in European Parliament, European Union, Labour, Member of the European Parliament, Mike Nattrass MEP, Nikki SINCLAIRE MEP, Paul Nuttall MEP, The Petition, TheMidnightGroup, UKIP | Leave a Comment »
Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 06/07/2010
#0048* – UKIP‘s Gerard BATTEN IN A CAT FIGHT – No Surprise There Then!
Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership,
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC
is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
I may well think that Gerard Batten UKIP MEP is little better than an excrecence with no manners, no charisma, little personality, no understanding of Justice and far better suited to running a telephone shop for BT than acting to represent ANYONE.
Gerard Batten is unreliable, untrustworthy and clearly dishonest.
Gerard Batten is a self serving creep without loyalty, integrity or morality – a Racist, anti Jewish, anti Muslim, anti Homosexual, pro EU membership supporter of UKIP’s membership of the Pan EU Political Party EFD group.
Gerard Batten is a contemptible little man who has done next best to nothing to move Britain one iota closer to leaving the EU.
You will note Gerard Batten openly colluded in the utterly corrupt selection process of UKIP leadership, of which he is a part, relative to the dishonest and corrupt selection of UKIP potential MEP candidates – he even employed the liar Michael McGough to promote the corruption.
Batten’s only independent claim is that he had a member of his staff do a re-write of the Government Pink Book on expenditure ie the cost to Britain of EU membership – The fiirst one he had produced was in 2006 and he has publish an update annually – here is the latest one as advertised on his web site CLICK HERE So I guess his staff have managed to produce two!
That slime like Batten disgust me and represent nothing that I value about these United Kingdoms may possibly have dawned on you, but he does deserve the right to defend himself against a very personalised attack by a fellow MEP.
Nothing like a good cat fight and who better to be involved than Gerard Batten and Mary Honeyball of Labour they are a fairly well matched pair with so much in common!
SECONDS OUT SECOND ROUND:
Mary Honeyball Labour MEP for London for reason known only to her has chosen to tell lies about me on her website the misnamed, ‘The Honeyball Buzz’ (who exactly is she trying to kid?).
I am advised that what she says is libelous and actionable but that the only people who make money out of libel actions are libel lawyers. Therefore I will counter to her lies with the truth, and respond by telling some truths about her.
to Reclaim YOUR Future
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK