January 2026
M	T	W	T	F	S	S
	1	2	3	4
5	6	7	8	9	10	11
12	13	14	15	16	17	18
19	20	21	22	23	24	25
26	27	28	29	30	31

Archive for the ‘Nigel FARAGE’ Category

Ukip’s Corruption Is Endemic & Hardly News!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 02/12/2014

Ukip’s Corruption Is Endemic & Hardly News!
.

Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

To Leave-The-EU

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’s Corruption Is Endemic & Hardly News!
This blog has written in detail, with endless examples, of Ukip corruption, fraud, cronyism, nepotism , abuse of office and dishonesty over many years with over 2.1/2 thousand blogs & detailed links!

.

#########

CAVEAT:

IF – Links in this blog are not functioning correctly, or you are seeking other details and facts regarding Ukip do use the >SEARCH< facilirty in the right sidebar or look up details in the PAGES section below this web sites main headline under:

>UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS< CLICK HERE

>UKIP Members – QUIT< CLICK HERE
UKIP ex Members Who Mostly Quit In Disgust

Hi,

you will note details of corruption in Ukip and of internal rigging and dishonesty in Ukip’s internal selection and election processes that show it is endemic – you may remember the detailed example shown by the Ukip returning Officer that exposed the corruption of the process and the involvement of officers of the party, including Christopher Gill and others CLICK HERE.

Then of course there are many resignation letters of well informed elected officers of the party such as:

Richard Suchorzewski CLICK HERE

John West CLICK HERE

Niall Warry CLICK HERE

Douglas Denny CLICK HERE

etc.

You will note from Douglas Denny’s letter of resignation he boasts of having detailed evidence of the criminality in Nigel Farage’s party, which as we all know is managed by Nigel Farage on a very hands on basis using his personal appointees, such as Douglas Denny, to corrupt processes to obtain the results he personally required!

I always believed that it was a criminal offence to fail to report crime and thus I wonder when Douglas Denny will be called to account on criminal charges.

TIMES - Ukip Rig Elections 02-Dec-2014 - 02

Then again we know that Nigel Farage’s doxy Annabelle Fuller acted on his behalf to rig elections whether in her corrupt move to belittle John West as a candidate by breech of data protection laws posting a confidential video on You Tube, a matter about which she lied, lies which led to lies from Nigel Farage and the resignation of John Wittaker MEP’s resignation as chairman.

Or as portrayed in Julia Langmaid’s letter:

Also seek out the details, all of which are covered on this web site, of John Wittacker MEP’s depature as Chairman or that of Chris Pain, Mike Nattrass MEP, or the lies of Ukip surrounding the departure of Jasna Badzak or Nikki Sinclaire MEP, Dr. David Abbott, Dr. Eric Edmonds, Roger Knappman MEP & Leader, Martin Hasslam, Petrina Holdsworth Chairman, Marta Andreasen MEP, David Bannerman MEP, John Petley (unless it paid!) and many many more who quit in disgust at the corruption in Nigel Farage’s party, which he has operated over many years as a one man fiefdom with absolute control. A control which with the help of Douglas Denny and other ‘placemen’ he enshrined in the corruption of the party constitution and rule book.

The media has also covered details of positions on MEP selection lists purchased by candidates in some detail previously!

Nigel Farage’s mask – the affable chappy in the pub act is clearly slipping

one can hear him already either blaming everyone else and accepting no responsibility for the actions of the party he has controlled, in every aspect, since Alan Sked left in disgust, or taking a leaf out of the book of his chums in the BNP, who are I note now openly backing him as do the EDL and other extremists, racists and the self serving!

He is more than likely to try to claim this is just a Government smear or the establishment trying to damage the party because, he will claim, it is doing so well.

This is of course just the dishonest spin of politics, as one can tell by even a glance at the facts and a small amount of research of the many key people in Ukip that Farage has fallen out with and just how implacable are their enemies who their dishonesty, corruption and offensive behaviour has done so much to earn.

Ukip ‘massaging’ selection process

By Press Association

Published: 00:31, 2 December 2014 | Updated: 00:31, 2 December 2014

Ukip’s selection process has been manipulated to allow the leadership to install favoured candidates, it has been claimed.

Leaked emails reveal a raft of concerns about the way the system in Nigel Farage’s party has been operated, including suggestions it has been “massaged by an internal clique to suit pre-determined outcomes”.

Psychometric tests, interviews and assessments were used by the party to weed out potential problem candidates ahead of the campaign for the May’s elections to the European parliament.

+1

Ukip’s leadership manipulated the party’s selection process, it is claimed

According to emails seen by The Times, Andrew Moncrieff, a member of the party’s governing committee, claimed it had turned into “another classic Ukip behind closed doors selection”.

He wrote last year: “There is the question of whether the final scores were massaged by an internal clique to suit pre-determined outcomes.

“What started out as an attempt to produce a transparent, equitable system has turned into another classic Ukip behind closed doors selection.”

Mr Moncrieff asked why “paid party lackeys have done surprisingly well” and raised the prospect of the involvement of “Nigel’s henchmen”.

Ukip deputy chairman Neil Hamilton claimed the list of candidates contained “manifest absurdities” in a private email, according to the newspaper.

“As you can imagine, I’m not pleased with the MEP selection process,” Mr Hamilton wrote. “Yet again, things have not been thought through properly and badly executed.”

In one email exchange, Will Gilpin, the party’s former chief executive, wrote: “When I saw the (MEP selection) list I concluded that the party doesn’t really want to change, that the same sycophancy will be the driving force.”

Mr Moncrieff and Mr Hamilton did not make the party’s shortlist for the European elections.

Douglas Denny, who was selected in an open hustings to be the Portsmouth South parliamentary candidate but was later dropped by the leadership, accused the party of being “immoral, undemocratic and deeply corrupt”, according to The Times.

Ukip said that its selection systems were fair and insisted Mr Farage had “no hand” in the process.

A spokesman said: “The results were not manipulated, and Nigel Farage had no hand whatsoever in the selection process, finding out the assessment results only at the NEC at which they were unveiled.

“The fairness of the process was, in fact, tested in court. The regional lists were not altered, except in Scotland where several candidates resigned, or where one or two candidates resigned in other regions.

“The process was not designed to ensure that anybody specific did not make the shortlist; it was designed, using external consultants, to ensure that comparatively unsuitable people did not make the shortlist, and worked well in that respect.”

To view the original article CLICK HERE
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-2856820/Ukip-massaging-selection-process.html#ixzz3KhhKNqhv

The Times in splendid isolation behind its pay wall has worked up the story with further details and would seem to have sourced much of the information via Alexi talking with the embittered scoundrel and imaginitive fantasist Douglas Denny, who is slowly spilling ther beans as his revenge for being demoted from being one of Nigel Farage’s more corrupt fixers!

Whether Alexi will manage to gain access to the hard evidence that will put Farage in prison, as boasted of by Denny, before Denny has his collar felt for colluding in criminal activity and failing to supply the facts with the evidence to the rightfull authorities is a moot question!

Ukip ‘fixing’ selection of candidates, emails claim

To view the originaldo buy a copy of today’s Times, where you will find the full text rather more decorously laid out!

Ukip ‘fixing’ selection of candidates, emails claim

Nigel Farage has gained support by pitching Ukip as an ‘anti-establishment’ party Carl Court/Getty Images

Alexi Mostrous and Billy Kenber

Ukip has manipulated the selection of prospective parliamentary candidates and is run by Nigel Farage as an “undemocratic” cabal, according to claims in a leaked cache of documents seen by The Times.

More than a dozen activists previously loyal to the Eurosceptic party have resigned over perceived efforts by Mr Farage and his allies to remove long-serving Ukip members from standing as MPs and MEPs in winnable seats.

As Mr Farage attempts to broaden Ukip’s appeal and to capitalise on its recent successes, some of his most longstanding foot-soldiers have accused the party of ignoring its own rules on selection procedures to the benefit of favoured candidates.

Neil Hamilton, now Ukip’s deputy chairman, warned in a private email that its list of MEP candidates for May’s European elections contained “manifest absurdities”.

“As you can imagine, I’m not pleased with the MEP selection process,” Mr Hamilton wrote. “Yet again, things have not been thought through properly and badly executed.”

In another leaked email, Will Gilpin, Ukip’s former chief executive, wrote: “When I saw the [MEP selection] list I concluded that the party doesn’t really want to change, that the same sycophancy will be the driving force.”

Mr Farage has gained support by pitching Ukip as an “anti-establishment” party seeking to shake up the old boys’ club in Westminster. Internal documents reveal, though, that senior figures questioned whether party leaders had tailored interview questions to discriminate against certain MEP candidates or had altered some candidates’ ratings to suit their own preferences.

Instead of allowing local branches to choose candidates for the European elections in May this year, Ukip required potential MEPs to undergo psychometric testing and a series of formal interviews and assessments. They were given a rating out of 100 based on their performance and placed on a shortlist that was voted on by every party member.

“There is the question of whether the final scores were ‘massaged’ by an internal clique to suit pre-determined outcomes,” Andrew Moncrieff, who remains on Ukip’s governing committee, wrote last year. “What started out as an attempt to produce a transparent, equitable system has turned into another classic Ukip ‘behind closed doors’ selection.”

Last night, a party spokesman said: “What we see are a series of claims by disappointed candidates. The system was fair and rigorous, and the quality of candidates continues to improve. As Ukip grows there are those who have been around a long time who feel that by dint of long service they are entitled to jobs and roles. The opposite is true, as today there is far greater competition. This can only be a good thing for the party and the country as a whole.”

Steve Crowther, the party chairman, had to reassure the party’s national executive committee last year that Mr Farage had “never at any stage given me even the slightest indication of who should and should not be on the list. Not once.”

Mr Moncrieff, who like Mr Hamilton did not make the European shortlist, questioned the involvement of “Nigel’s henchmen” in the process and asked why “paid party lackeys have done surprisingly well”. He suggested that a likely reason was “that it suits the party hierarchy to get people paid by the party elected as MEPs so they can be paid for by the EU”.

Two Ukip insiders have suggested that at least one candidate’s scores may have been downgraded.

“The candidate got his results [from the firm which carried out tests o/n behalf of Ukip],” one source said. “They told him he was one of the highest. His scores were higher than his position on the list, that was for sure.”

The insider said that members of the party’s governing committee were not shown the candidates’ scores and were simply presented with a ranked list of 60 candidates at the same time as it was published to members.

David Gale, Ukip’s former candidate for the police and crime commissioner role in Derbyshire, resigned last year after suggesting that one party official had justified the omission of an MEP candidate on the basis that “all the members would vote for him and we can’t have that”. Ukip strongly denied the claims at the time.

Rifts in the party over selection look set to continue into next year. Douglas Denny, a former Farage loyalist who joined Ukip in 1999, accused the party of being “immoral, undemocratic and deeply corrupt” after he was deselected as the party’s parliamentary candidate for Portsmouth South.

Mr Denny was selected 18 months ago after winning an open hustings but was dropped by Ukip’s leadership after it asserted the right to change candidates in so-called “key seats”. In a resignation note he said that Ukip had “demonstrated conclusively that they are willing to manipulate the MP candidates’ selection process . . . and have changed the rules recently to allow this to be done. Those choosing will be under the shadow of Nigel Farage.”

Andrew MacDowell, Portsmouth’s chairman, also resigned from the party in protest. Roger Bird, a Ukip member, told a local newspaper that Mr Denny’s deselection was a “routine event”.

More recently, the entire local party branch in South Hereford voted to dissolve itself in support of the prospective parliamentary candidate, Kip Waistell, who resigned after a Ukip MEP allegedly threatened to have him “deselected”.

Mr Waistell claimed in his resignation letter that “there are those within Ukip who have sought from day one to manipulate people against each other in this constituency”. Ukip’s response was that a “lacklustre” Mr Waistell “jumped before he was pushed”.

Last year, about 200 Ukip members paid £500 each to enter the process to become an MEP candidate in the European elections. Some 77 shortlisted names paid a further £360 for screening tests, bringing the party more than £125,000 in income.

Mr Crowther told NEC members in an email that the selection process was “calculated to be self-liquidating”. However, Ukip’s 2013 accounts listed the costs of MEP selection as £32,671, suggesting it made a profit of more than £95,000.

Caroline Gent, a Ukip councillor, wrote to the party’s NEC last year to express her “total dismay” after candidates she considered to be superior were passed over. “The whole thing stinks,” she said. “I thought UKIP were supposed to be honest.”

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to

Reclaim YOUR Future

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com

General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com

Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com

TWITTER: Greg_LW

Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN
&
To Leave-The-EU

Posted in Nigel FARAGE, UKIP | Tagged: Andrew Moncrieff, Annabelle Fuller, Chris Pain, Douglas Denny, GL-W, Godfrey Bloom, Greg Lance-Watkins, Greg_L-W, John West, John Wittacker, Julia Longmeade, Mike Nattrass, Niall Warry, Nigel Farage, Richard Suchorzewski, Wil Gilpin | Leave a Comment »

Cameron Ducking To Avoid The Misunderstood Ukip Issue!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 01/12/2014

Cameron Ducking To Avoid The Misunderstood Ukip Issue!
.

Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs

To Spread The Facts World Wide

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

To Leave-The-EU

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!

Cameron Ducking To Avoid The Misunderstood Ukip Issue! As it is NOT how well Nigel Farage’s odious rabble will do but what damage they will inflict on the Tories boosting the danger of Ed Milliband & pennuary as we to wait for the EU’s inevitable collapse!

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Hi,

reading my way around the blogs and papers as regular ports of call I found the article below of particular resonance and believe you will find it a worthwhile read, wherein I incline to agree with both the main thrust of the article and the detail.

Though I must say I do feel that both Cameron and the author are over estimating the likely threat of Ukip holding and serious level of power even as a balnce at Westminster.

Although it is possible that Farage’s party could get as many as 10 seats in the Commons it is very unlikely and a more probable outcome will be none or just one or two, which at this stage does not include a seat for the showman Farage, who has not made any serious appearance in his chosen seat of Thanet for 3 months and when last there appearing on a panel it seems he got bored and lefty early for more pressing matters:

It is of course not unreasonable to assume he merely left to indulge himself as that is how he is most frequently portrayed by his own press office who know him best:

The threat of Nigel Farage’s party

Is not in the next parliament but how they will disrupt the election where they are likely to take more votes from the incumbent governing party than the opposition leading to the calamitous possibility of Ed Milliband and Ed Balls in Downing Street with a minority Government propped up by the self serving SNP – a situation from which Britain may well never recover which would lock us into The EU until its inevitable collapse.

Also be minded that the SNP have 6 MPs in the present Government, a number Nigel Farage’s antics can only aspire to, and they have proved to be a total irrelevance at Westminster and it has been their home territory in Scotland where they have proved so damaging to Scotland, the Scots and the Union.

Sadly, like the SNP, Ukip has only an ability to do damage as it rakes through the gutter of politics aided by a self serving claque and the failures of society – pandering, as it does, to any form of populism however unpleasant, just to gain places on the gravy train when clearly they have no real interest in any issue other than their own income stream as they so clearly damage the honest desire of a huge tranche of the British electorate who seek to overturn our membership of the EU’s political engineering, with a new relationship in association with the EU as an economic common market rather than vassals of the new political Empirate.

I am firmly of the belief that the responsible and honourable way forward for these United Kingdoms has been laid out in detail HERE and HERE

However for some further thoughts, as it pertains to Cameron and the future of the Tory Party:

Saturday, 29 November 2014

The EU Game Cameron Plays

It is a truth universally acknowledged that when it comes to all matters EU, Cameron – the cast iron Prime Minister – is not to be trusted.

Yet he is also a man under political pressure not only from his own party but what he perceives as the UKIP threat for his general election chances. This is evident with his 2017 referendum promise which was made under duress while he had previously been anxious to avoid one at all costs.

So as we enter the final straight leading up to May 2015 we had a much-hyped speech on immigration yesterday. Its purpose not only to try to win the election but form the basis of winning an EU referendum in 2017.

In his speech we had the typical Cameron flourishes which were a rehash of his “commitments” over the Lisbon Treaty. With Lisbon he was repeatedly asked what would happen if it was ratified by all member states before he came to power. “We won’t let matters rest there” was his response, which as we all know, letting matters rest there was precisely what he did. A U-turn that almost certainly cost him the 2010 election.

Yesterday we had a variation of the same theme.

If our concerns fall on deaf ears and we cannot put our relationship with the EU on a better footing, then of course I rule nothing out.

Cameron repeated the “I rule nothing out” during the questions and answers session which followed his speech. Cameron hinting he would consider exit but not actually specifying it and we think it’s fair to assume that he won’t.

However the more interesting point concerned how Cameron was going to attempt to wriggle himself out of the hole which he has very firmly plonked himself in, namely that any reforms to satisfy eurosceptics needs treaty change and that can’t be done in the two years he proposed, if at all.

Cameron acknowledged during the Q&A session following his speech that his whole package required treaty change (my transcript):

Guardian: Patrick Wintour from the Guardian. You’ve cited Open Europe in your speech. Open Europe’s figures show that even if you’re on the minimum wage and you lose your tax credits a Pole or a Bulgarian will still have a financial incentive to come to the UK. Why are you sure that these measures will repel people from coming to the UK and secondly does this require Treaty change in your mind

Cameron: The answer to the second question is yes. These changes taken together they will require some Treaty changes. There’s a debate in Europe about exactly which bits of legislation which bits of the Treaty you’ll need to change but there’s no doubt this package as a whole will require some Treaty change. And I’m confident we can negotiate that.

Such arguments have been made often on the internet so it’s refreshing to see Cameron finally and publicly coming to the same conclusion. It’s also interesting that his numerous references to Open Europe effectively outs it as the europhile organistion that it is and that its own purpose is to keep the UK in the EU.

So…how to remove himself from a hole? Well we get a very clear indication of how he is attempting to do it from the superb analysis by Richard North of Cameron’s speech:

What the Prime Minister has done is narrow down the “reform” spectrum to cover one subject, and one subject only – immigration. To be more specific, it has been narrowed down to freedom of movement.

This has a number of positives for Cameron. By linking the freedom of movement to the issue of benefits, has made Cameron try to look somewhat tougher on both. Then by concentrating largely on immigration he’s turning his fire on UKIP.

With UKIP exiting the EU arena and going for the anti-immigrant vote as its sole purpose, topped off by an all round aggressive undertone that by Farage’s admission alienates half the electorate, it’s an understandable strategy from Cameron. It’s not the definite “ins” or the definite “outs” which matter, it’s the more sensitive “don’t knows”, “couldn’t care less”, and “could be persuaded either way” votes which win a referendum.

Thus by proposing what “appears” to be more a moderate sensible solutions to a concerned electorate rather than one of a more robust and alienating policy of repatriation (nevermind confusion) it would leave UKIP with nowhere else to go. It’s a similar scenario to countries such as Cuba whose economy used to rely mainly on one export- sugar. Any failure for whatever reason in the product and you’re buggered.

Another positive for Cameron is that there are mechanisms within EU membership which are “already possible without treaty change, or even additional EU legislation“. Those which do require treaty change conveniently can be achieved via Article 48 without the need for an IGC (Intergovernmental Conference):

…Article 48 – which deals with treaty change – also allows for a “simplified procedure”. Potentially, this would allow the procedure to be completed on a rainy afternoon in Brussels, perhaps on the margins of a European Council. There is, though, a small condition. The changes permissible are confined to Part Three of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) which, just as it happens, include freedom of movement. Against all the odds, therefore, Cameron could pull off a quickie treaty and come home in triumph, waving a piece of paper.

What we can see here therefore is Cameron relying on the rather misleadingly named “self-amending” parts of the Lisbon Treaty. He will attempt to return from ‘negotiations’ claiming he’s reformed the EU via Article 48, in this Cameron is attempting to do “a Chamberlain“. It’s as transparent as it’s dishonest.

However there are also some significant negatives with Cameron’s strategy. The hurdles for Cameron are not over. Article 48 is limited to what it can and can’t do and it cannot just change the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) on a whim as and when, despite some of the eurosceptic rhetoric.

While Article 48 by-passes the need for a complex full-blown EU treaty and an IGC, any amendments still require the UK Parliament’s permission (along with the other 27 member states):

The amendments shall enter into force after being ratified by all the Member States in accordance with their respective constitutional requirements.

And under Article 48.7 we can see an implicit approval clause

Any initiative taken by the European Council on the basis of the first or the second subparagraph shall be notified to the national Parliaments. If a national Parliament makes known its opposition within six months of the date of such notification, the decision referred to in the first or the second subparagraph shall not be adopted. In the absence of opposition, the European Council may adopt the decision.

In short it means Parliament always agrees to amendments unless it specifically objects within a certain time period. Therefore as we can see from Article 48 the key point is that Parliament still has a say in any potential amendments to the Lisbon Treaty.

Thus we could be in an interesting position where Cameron’s much fabled “piece of paper” is rejected by Parliament. Realistically this is unlikely. With all main parties supporting EU membership, the likelihood is Parliament will support it, but with lots of pantomime – Labour and the Lib Dems complaining it didn’t go far enough. Here would be a repeat of ERM membership – all parties supported it, for example Labour as represented by a future Chancellor known as Gordon Brown in 1990 although their criticisim was that membership didn’t go far enough:

We needed an investment Budget to deal with the problems of training in industry, a Budget that would pave the way for negotiations to enter the European monetary system [ERM], a Budget that would do something about the problems that industry now faces, with investment flat and falling away.

While permission from the UK parliament maybe assured, Cameron also requires unanimity within the European Council as this Parliamentary document makes clear in its conclusions; “…any Treaty revision by means of simplified procedures, and any changes to decision procedures by means of passerelles, will be subject to veto by the Government in the European Council or Council of Ministers.”

Thus initially Cameron has to have the approval of the other 27 member states, via the European Council and then via their own respective individual parliaments as well. Here we can probably expect likely objections to Cameron’s proposal to limit immigration to come from countries such as Poland or Romania both of which have a veto (a proper one unlike a phantom one).

Another difficulty for Cameron is, and one that has always been present, if the UK requests too much then it leads to other countries demanding concessions as well. And has always been the way through the horse trading (and consensus) which typifies EU politics the UK will give up more than it achieves.

So it is more than likely that Cameron’s package will be whittled down to non committal “declarations”, “protocols” and “technicalities”. All accompanied by theatre, marching bands and cheerleaders…but no substance. Wilson’s “New Zealand butter” writ large. All helpfully promoted by our europhile media.

Encouragingly, and somewhat revealingly, while Cameron acknowledged Norway was a part of the single market he did not specifically mention during his speech that it was “governed by fax” which he has been prone to do in the past. This is possibly a new development. And so we wonder if Witterings from Witney’s meeting with Cameron in August on this and other matters (coupled with Owen Paterson’s recent speech) had a far more reaching resonance than we might have fully appreciated. Certainly Cameron has not used the phrase since. Instead he noted:

Those who argue that Norway or Switzerland offer a better model for Britain ignore one crucial fact: they have each had to sign up to the principle of freedom of movement in order to access the single market and both countries actually have far higher per capita immigration than the UK.

Which seems to suggest the Prime Minister knows full well (or has been informed by one of his constituents) that we can have single market access without being members of the EU, thus removing ourselves from the political union baggage which he claims he wants to do. It appears that we are beginning to establish the Norway option within the public debate.

Rather incoherently he then argues that EEA membership is not an acceptable option because it has to sign up to the principle of freedom of movement, but at the same time argues that within the EU and the single market he can negotiate restrictions. A claim that becomes even more absurd when the EEA agreement, under Articles 112-3, allows greater scope to place restrictions on immigration.

And further danger emerges for Cameron that by narrowing his reforms down to one issue he risks alienating those who wish “further and deeper reforms” such as big business represented by the likes of the CBI or members of his own side. It’s also a tacit admission from the Prime Minister that he has somewhat painted himself into a corner – he has nowhere else to go either.

With this in mind we increasingly wonder if Cameron has simply just changed the hooks on which he has impaled himself and in this he is entirely beatable.

Posted by The Boiling Frog at 11/29/2014 08:01:00 pm

Labels: Article 48, Article 50, Cameron, Cuba, EU, Lisbon Treaty, Referendum, UKIP

7 comments:

Anonymous30 November 2014 09:55

Being that 2017 in mental terms is now ‘the near future’ it’s reasonable to theorise beyond the Referendum in the case that the contrived terms are sufficient to convince the UK electorate to endorse continued membership.

Even by voting to remain in, the contradictions and inadequacies of the EU will remain, and the institutions and justifications behind them will continue to decay. Just by voting to stay in won’t make the EU any more coherent or workable – as far as I’m concerned, it will still fall apart in chaos. Those observers who actually know what they’re talking about will highlight that EU membership is still the ultimate resort of the politically insane and the logic to that is to continue the campaign to withdraw.

I’m sure Cameron thinks he’s being jolly clever by evading the points at hand. After an ‘In’ result, the anti-EU campaign will therefore continue, business as usual.

Reply

Replies

The Boiling Frog30 November 2014 11:08

Agreed…the EU isn’t finished in terms of its final destination so it is a moving target. This means that issue cannot remain settled while the EU keeps on integrating, especially when we consider the “referendum lock”.

We can see another example with the Scottish referendum which has failed to silence the debate

http://www.heraldscotland.com/politics/scottish-politics/give-us-a-new-referendum-by-2024-say-two-thirds-of-scots.25747131

Anonymous30 November 2014 12:43

Sorry – should really declare identities under ‘Anonymous’ – Douglas Carter as previous post.

I can’t blame the Scots for taking the opportunistic route – it was a literal insanity freelancing Gordon Brown to change the terms of the referendum half-way through voting – the people sending in a postal vote in advance of Brown’s intervention were voting in a Referendum which no longer existed on the final day. Some observers noted at the time there was no evidence his panicked reaction had any influence on the eventual outcome. Scots Nationalists are entitled to draw exactly the opposite conclusion since an intervention is made quite specifically to influence an outcome.

I get no self-awareness from the Cameron\Brown\Murphy axis (if you take my point there) that the fault that the Nats’ campaign has not been stalled is entirely down to their own stupidity immediately in front of the finish line.

That ought to be a lesson for the custodians of the EU Referendum – the whole thing needs to be crystal-clear well in advance of the poll itself – and changing the terms of the debate half way through the Campaign will simply guarantee they settle nothing on a permanent basis.

Reply

WitteringsfromWitney30 November 2014 15:24

Thank you for the mention and link.

To think that I may have ‘educated’ David Cameron, or made him change his mind – I wish I could be that famous! 🙂

Cameron’s basic error in all this is that he forgot an old adage: when in hole stop digging.

Reply

Replies

The Boiling Frog30 November 2014 20:16

You’ve no need to be famous if you’re the power behind the throne 🙂

On a serious note, it’s obviously hard to quantify influential impact, but it seems to me to be more than coincidence that Cameron has refrained from specifying the “Norway fax” meme ever since.

In addition he is clearly in league with Open Europe who have ‘tightened’ up their rhetoric on Norway particularly after a press complaint from this blog…

My observation thus is that your meeting in August had a significant impact.

And agreed completely on digging holes.

Anonymous1 December 2014 08:48

On a notional academic point –

‘Cameron has refrained from specifying the “Norway fax” meme’

…if he has indeed accepted that the myth that Norway has no influence, would it not be the case that any representative of a Government led by him would also need to be slapped down if they themselves continued to make that erroneous claim?

For example, imagine if his own Deputy Prime Minister carried on using the claim – you’d think Cameron would want to bring him in for a re-briefing, wouldn’t you?

Greg_L-W.1 December 2014 10:04

Hi,

I think not, Cameron has clearly lost control over the lies, distortions and misrepresentations Clegg is now using in the run up to the General Election, as he desperately fights for the life of his party which has been so conclusively trashed by his leadership and the incompetence and dishonesty of his MPs and MEPs.

We all saw what Clegg’s legacy was in the EU election and we can expect the same whipeout in the General Election as his voters return to their natyural homes as either Tory or Labour.

Norway’s position has been misrepresented consistently by the main parties and also by the racist claims of Ukip in relation to immigration, where not being in the EU but with the benefit of EEA membership has left Norway and for that matter Switzerland with around twice the levels of immigration that Britain has experienced, despite our Commonwealth affiliations!

Facts and due dilligence have never been the forte of Ukip and Clegg & Farage would both seem to be willing to make any claim for publicity and self aggrandisement.

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to

Reclaim YOUR Future

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com

DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:

Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com

UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com