Nigel Farage the self serving leader UKIP sure knows how to damage The EUroSceptic movement in Britain – and at the end of the day the damage done may well lead to EUroSceptics failing to win the vote to Leave-The-EU in David Cameron‘s clearly fudged claims to be running a Referendum some time in the hazy distant future IF he is re-elected!!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Is UKIP really a ‘Nigel Farage dictatorship’ rife with sexism?
by Mary Honeyball
11 February 2013
UKIP seems to be a party filled with anti-women sentient – it is a one man band and it is all about Nigel Farage, or so it certainly seems, claims Labour Party MEP “A woman’s place is cleaning behind the fridge.” Well that’s what they seem to believe in UKIP. Indeed, in 2004 UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom said just this and the events which unfolded last week shows little has changed in the intervening years since Bloom made such remarks.
It would be laughable if it was not so damaging, offensive and humiliating for those on the receiving end. So it is hardly a surprise to learn that the party’s only female MEP might have suffered alleged discrimination from within the party. But it was a surprise to see Marta Andreasen MEP launch a searing attack on the leader of the party Nigel ‘too much air time’ Farage.
She has said of Farage: “He doesn’t try to involve intelligent professional women in positions of responsibility in the party. He thinks women should be in the kitchen or in the bedroom.” Andreasen continued by telling the BBC (to view the article CLICK HERE) that she had been openly criticised by her party leader and other MEPs, claiming that this amounted to bullying.
“I’ve been bullied, in private situations, for decisions I have made by Nigel,” she said. “I have been accused of being disloyal, breaching confidence and breaching my contract with the party. There’s an attitude that either you keep silent about everything that’s been going on in the party or suffer the consequences.” Andreasen said she believed Farage – who was re-elected as leader in 2010 after standing down a year earlier to contest a Westminster seat – “did not like women” although this is purely her opinion and allegation.
I have appeared alongside Andreasen before on the BBC’s Newsnight programme and her views were some of the most thoughtful that I have seen come out of UKIP. We should give weight to what she says because what she is demonstrating is that UKIP seems to be a party filled with anti-women sentient. It is a one man band and it is all about Farage, or so it certainly seems.
Andreasen who, represents South East England in the European Parliament, has said she will not stand again. Still, this is a brave thing to do – to reveal a bullying culture at the highest level of the party while she is still in office and to do it so publically is courageous. She also claims in an interview with LondonlovesBusiness.com that Farage runs his party like some kind of dictatorship:
“Under his leadership – and I have questioned his leadership obviously a number of times – the party has become a dictatorship,” she said. “This is a Stalinist way of operating and he doesn’t care about the membership or the grassroots.”
We also should not forget former UKIP MEP Nikki Sinclaire – a lesbian, who won a sex discrimination case against her former colleagues on a default judgement at Exeter Employment Tribunal. This came after UKIP failed to lodge a defence. Sinclaire alleged that UKIP MEP Godfrey Bloom had called her a “queer”. We can only draw our own conclusions from all of this..
Marta Andreasen UKIP MEP, the self proclaimed former EU ‘Chief Accountant’, self publicist & fraud on Nigel Farage’s Stalinist Style of control of leadership!!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
as regular readers of this blog will be aware we strive for accuracy in exposing why correct as we believe UKIP are to campaign to Leave-The-EU we are all too well aware of just how unfit for purpose UKIP is relative to this task.
Much of the information we publish is sourced from senior members of the party and EU insiders, it is always interesting to be in a position to publish their direct quotes from public sources, thus not placing them at risk from the centralised authoritarian style of the party, so distanced from its farcical claim to be Libertarian when clearly it has no understanding of the doctrine and would seem to believe the style is interchangeable with ‘libertine’.
UKIP’s “budget buster” on Farage’s dictatorship and his dislike of women
Marta Andreasen might not be a household name, but her story was made for the headlines.
As a former chief accountant to the European Commission and an Argentinian-born, Swedish-married, Spanish citizen, Andreasen is on paper the antithesis of a stereotypical UKIP member. Since blowing the whistle on her EU bosses for alleged account fiddling in 2002, Andreasen has become the poster child of the British right-wing, desperate to claw back power from the EU.
Upon joining UKIP in 2007, the so-called “budget buster” rose up the party ranks quickly, first serving as party treasurer and then as a UKIP MEP from 2009. She was even dubbed Nigel Farage’s right hand gal as the pair pledged to take Brussels by storm and bring the Brexit debate centre stage here in the UK.
UKIP’s Marta Andreasen and Nigel Farage in happier times (2009)
But with only a year-and-a-half left to her term in Brussels, the 58-year-old considers her future with the party in serious doubt. And, with little left to lose but her reputation and a Euroscepticism to rival that of the fiercest Europhobes, Andreasen is going out swinging.
“Nigel promotes the people who say yes to him and will be grateful for getting the job and will never contradict him,” says Andreasen.
“Under his leadership – and I have questioned his leadership obviously a number of times – the party has become a dictatorship. This is a Stalinist way of operating and he doesn’t care about the membership or the grassroots…”
Andreasen says that Farage has worked to exclude her from the election list and that recent electoral party reforms – put forward to the members as part of the new UKIP Constitution – have been specifically created to target the few remaining independent party voices, such as herself. UKIP deny the claim and say that the draft reforms Andreasen has seen are not the final version.
“The new constitution for UKIP has empowered the leader in a disproportionate way. Notably in the election of candidates,” says Andreasen. “It has put the decision in his hands – literally.
“This was a matter of concern for much of the membership who didn’t realise when they were approving the constitution what the essence of the changes was.”
This will spell a future in the political wilderness for UKIP at a critical time in the EU membership debate, she insists
“Nigel promotes the people who say yes to him and will be grateful for getting the job and will never contradict him,” says Andreasen.
The backlash is only the latest in a line of UKIP revolts, going all the way up to UKIP founder Alan Sked who called the party “morally dodgy” and “extraordinarily right-wing”, as well as UKIP/Tory flip-flopper and MEP David Campbell-Bannerman.
In a recent interview with LondonlovesBusiness.com, Campbell-Bannerman said UKIP had “become very much a one-man band and a bit of a cult”.
“There is a followership and even the constitution has been changed to favour pro-leader candidates. I don’t think that’s healthy,” he added.
Late last year, Andreasen decided to pen her objections in an email to the UKIP’s south-east UK members. She quipped that the proposed changes, in effect, disenfranchised the base and allowed the national executive to dictate the MEP list selection process.
Andreasen also insisted that standing MEPs would not be informed about their right to run again until the last minute and that they would be barred from communicating to party members until the election, putting them at a severe disadvantage.
“I will find a possibility to serve my constituents in some way and to find a way to have them vote for me. Maybe the possibility will be that I will stand as an independent,” says Andreasen.
The reforms, she said, mean that the process will be manipulated and was already resulting in the “rumoured” fast-tracking of the controversial former Tory MP and now UKIP national executive member Neil Hamilton and his wife Christine, in the 2014 election list.
The letter was subsequently leaked, and Andreasen was left facing the prospect of a libel suit from Hamilton who slammed her for spreading “false rumours”. UKIP subsequently denied charges that Andreasen was threatened with de-selection by UKIP chairman Steve Crowther who called her statements “wrong”.
Regardless, exclusion from the 2014 election list now seems likely for the outspoken accountant, although Andreasen insists that it will not mark the end of her political career.
“I will find a possibility to serve my constituents in some way and to find a way to have them vote for me. Maybe the possibility will be that I will stand as an independent,” she says.
“Should I give up just because someone is bullying me not to stand?”
But why on earth does a South-American Spaniard care quite so much about her south east English constituents?
Well it seems, a part of it is personal, another ideological.
“Nigel does not like women,” says Andreasen. “He will not tolerate women that have a certain intelligence. He thinks women should be in the kitchen or in the bedroom. These are the two kinds of women he will respect, not a woman that says ‘things are not as you say and we should follow the rules’.
“Nigel does not like someone who will have reasonable ideas that contradict his ideas. He does not accept any contradiction to his ideas. Basically from day one, since I was elected, he was dismissive of my work.”
This doesn’t seem entirely in line with Farage’s original decision to select Andreasen or his support of Jane Collins for UKIP’s first parliamentary seat in last November’s by-election to replace disgrace Labour MP Denis MacShane, but Andreasen puts this down to pragmatism.
Staying candid about the reality that she owes her seat to Farage, the Spaniard nonetheless believes it was a two-way street. UKIP got Andreasen’s credibility, which she says they “desperately needed” at a time when David Cameron still felt it acceptable to publicly label UKIP “fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists”.
Marta Andreasen UKIP campaigning for EU Elections in 2009
In part due to her help, UKIP has since gone on to win 13 seats in Brussels, at times outstripped the LibDems in national polling and even started to challenge the Conservatives for domination at the EU level. The Andreasen-Farage duo proved powerful, with the party scooping up almost 450,000 votes in 2009 in the south east, where there are only some 5,000 UKIP members.
In exchange for her “credibility,” Andreasen got a chance to go and reopen her unfinished work, combing through the EU’s accounts. She immediately joined the Committee on Budgetary Control, which promises to monitors the haemorrhaging of EU funds.
Her work, she believes, is instrumental in building the case for Brexit, an idea Andreasen is as passionate about as her UKIP peers.
“I joined UKIP because the Tories wanted to reform the EU and in my experience I thought that the EU could not be reformed. In the course of my years as an MEP, I have only grown more convinced of this,” says Andreasen.
“I have always felt that the UK was the only country that would have the power to change the EU and that they would be able to do this by either leaving the EU or threatening to leave the EU.
“Contrary to what people say, the UK brings more benefits to the EU than the EU brings to the UK,” she adds.
And once the UK leaves, or threatens to leave, Andreasen sees other countries starting to notice the clear disadvantages of membership, and breaking off too.
“It was immediately apparent to me that the EU system was open to fraud and that it was deliberately left open to fraud. I could see this very clearly,” she says.
This has not, and will not change without a serious push by the British, she insists.
Yet with Cameron now promising a referendum after the next election, and also heading to Europe to negotiate a budget freeze, Andreasen insists he will do just enough to convince the electorate that he is “trying”, without actually offering the much-needed drive to end senseless waste, burdensome bureaucracy and corruption.
“I think that Cameron will try to negotiate a few changes that will make his promises credible to people at least for some time. I believe some partners in the EU, notably Germany, will want to help him out. But we should not expect big and lasting changes to be accepted by the Brussels bureaucrats,” says Andreasen.
“I know that eventually the EU will come asking for more money, as happened with the budget for 2012 where Cameron claimed victory in freezing the budget with only a 2% increase – in line with inflation – but then at the end of the year an extra 9bn euro had to be injected to cover the pending invoices….so the increase was actually 9%. But this way Cameron gains 12 or 18 months.”
This is why UKIP continues to be a vital voice not only in the UK, but in Europe and the world, says Andreasen, and crucially why the party must pool all its resources into getting one or two members elected to Westminster not just Brussels.
“Farage is a good spokesman and he is good in the media, but he couldn’t care less about the membership and I don’t think that he would allow UKIP to be the party that is going to lead the way out of the EU – I don’t at all,” says Andreasen.
“Farage doesn’t care about getting MPs elected to Westminster and if we don’t get MPs elected then we will not be able to lead the process of leaving the EU.”
Comments like these already caused a public spat in 2011, when Andreasen called on Farage to resign following a poor showing in the national elections. He retaliated by calling her “out of touch”.
With council elections coming up this May, the EU elections next year and the general election in 2015, and a promised referendum on Europe two years later, the debate will only continue to heat up.
“We have limited resources so we can’t fight all the by-elections and when we do try and fight all these by-elections there is no way that we can succeed. We should concentrate on three or four places where we have a real chance of winning,” says Andreasen.
“But now Farage is saying that he wants candidates everywhere for the council elections. It is just a publicity stunt and this is why we get the candidates that we get. We get candidates that go on holiday when the election is going on or get people who come out with comments which are absolutely against the policy of the party.”
With opinions like these, the “budget buster” may find herself on a one-way road out of UKIP but don’t discount her going away just yet – her soap opera-like political saga seems far from over.
Marta Andreasen on Nigel Farage’s Stalinist Style of management of UKIP!
Hell has no fury like a woman scorned as The BBC tells us!!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
as regular readers of this blog will be aware we strive for accuracy in exposing why correct as we believe UKIP are to campaign to Leave-The-EU we are all too well aware of just how unfit for purpose UKIP is relative to this task.
Much of the information we publish is sourced from senior members of the party and EU insiders, it is always interesting to be in a position to publish their direct quotes from public sources, thus not placing them at risk from the centralised authoritarian style of the party, so distanced from its farcical claim to be Libertarian when clearly it has no understanding of the doctrine and would seem to believe the style is interchangeable with ‘libertine’.
Relations between leader Nigel Farage and MEP Marta Andreasen have been strained for some time
A senior member of the UK Independence Party has threatened to quit after accusing leader Nigel Farage of being a “Stalinist dictator” and “anti-women”.
Marta Andreasen, who represents the South East England in the European Parliament, said she was unlikely to stand as a UKIP candidate next year.
She told the BBC that Mr Farage did not want “intelligent, professional” women in key positions in the party.
He responded by describing the criticism as “laughable nonsense”.
Relations between the two have been strained for some time, with Ms Andreasen calling for Mr Farage to quit after the party’s poor performance in council elections in 2011.
Since then, UKIP’s fortunes have improved and it recorded its best performance in a parliamentary by-election in Rotherham in December.
‘Dictatorship’
“Start Quote
He doesn’t try to involve intelligent professional women in positions of responsibility in the party. He thinks women should be in the kitchen or in the bedroom”
Marta Andreasen UKIP MEP
Ms Andreasen, who worked for the European Commission before joining UKIP and being elected in 2009, told the BBC that “if things don’t change” within the party “she can’t imagine a way to continue”.
Of Mr Farage, she told LondonlovesBusiness.com: “Under his leadership – and I have questioned his leadership obviously a number of times – the party has become a dictatorship. This is a Stalinist way of operating and he doesn’t care about the membership or the grassroots.”
And she told the BBC she had been openly criticised by her party leader and other MEPs, suggesting that this amounted to bullying.
“I’ve been bullied, in private situations, for decisions I have made by Nigel. I have been accused of being disloyal, breaching confidence and breaching my contract with the party. There’s an attitude that either you keep silent about everything that’s been going on in the party or suffer the consequences.”
Ms Andreasen said she believed Mr Farage – who was re-elected as leader in 2010 after standing down a year earlier to contest a Westminster seat – “did not like women”.
“I am the only female MEP,” she added. “He doesn’t try to involve intelligent professional women in positions of responsibility in the party. He thinks women should be in the kitchen or in the bedroom.”
She said she planned to stay in the European Parliament as a UKIP representative until the end of the current Parliament in 2014, to see out her “mandate” and “look for ways I can continue to represent the membership”. She said she might consider standing as an independent next year.
‘No bar to advancement’Asked about Ms Andreasen’s comments, Mr Farage told the BBC: “This is just laughable nonsense.” When asked if he disliked women, he joked: “They’ve caused me a lot of trouble over the years.”
Mr Farage has defended UKIP as being different from other parties after Prime Minister David Cameron said some of its members were “pretty odd people”. He said UKIP did have “some eccentrics” but this was healthy and he was an unusual party leader in that he was a conviction politician.
Ms Andreasen is the party’s sole remaining female MEP, after Nikki Sinclaire was expelled from UKIP in 2010.
Ms Sinclaire later brought a sexual discrimination case against the party which was subsequently dropped.
At the time, the party issued a statement affirming its “opposition to discrimination on all grounds as prescribed by law and otherwise” and stressed that sexuality was “no bar to involvement or advancement” within the party.
Idiotic claims that Marta Andreasen was The EU Chief Accountant & A Whistle Blower!
That David Bannerman was in some meaningful way related to a long dead Liberal Prime Minister!
That Nigel Farage was a highly successful City trader!
That Christopher Monkton was a member of The House of Lords & had a cure for AIDS!
That Michael Holmes was who he claimed to be in Who’s Who!
The list is long & many examples can be found if you CLICK HERE or HERE!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
Should this title read ‘ANOTHER …
Farage Fawkes plot blows up
‘He is the ten-times great-grandson of Fawkes,’ Ukip leader Nigel Farage announced with a flourish
An apparent coup for Ukip, which last week welcomed to its ranks Philip Fawkes, a direct descendent of the Gunpowder Plot leader Guy Fawkes.
‘He is the ten-times great-grandson of Fawkes,’ Ukip leader Nigel Farage announced with a flourish. ‘The blood of rebellion still runs in his veins.’
Moments later came the clarification: ‘Mr Fawkes is not directly descended, but shared a common ancestor in the Catholic plotter’s 15th-century great-great-grandfather.’ As do many of us.
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque & the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
.
UKIP’s Inept Leadership Spats Go Public with Matrta Andreasen -vs- Neil Hamilton antics gaining public prominence due to incompetent PR & Press Office and clear lack of leadership!
Plus of course the so very convenient convenient leaking of Police involvement in William Dartmouth’s private spat with his wife!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
sorry – I picked this story up whilst in hospital on a bit of an emergency and was unable to publish it at the time – however I note team Junius did so and here is their article with a few additional comments:
Ukip MEP Marta Andreasen is threatened with deselection after Neil Hamilton accusations
Marta Andreasen, the Ukip MEP, has been threatened with deselection by Steve Crowther, the party chairman, after she was accused of spreading false rumours.
Nigel Farage and Marta Andreasen in happier times
Photo: EDDIE MULHOLLAND
By Tim Walker
7:30AM GMT 10 Jan 2013
Mandrake’s disclosure on Sunday that Neil Hamilton, who is now a leading member of Ukip, had accused Marta Andreasen, one of the party’s members of the European Parliament of spreading “false rumours” about him and his wife, Christine, has had rapid consequences.
The chairman of the Right-wing party, Steve Crowther, has threatened Andreasen, a former European Commission whistleblower,
(G.L-W.: Marta Andreasen was NOT an EU whistleblower – she was susppended from her job as one of many accountants in The EU having falsified her CV and failed to inform The EU that the OECD had removed her from post on allegations of racism and inability to perform her job.
Further as the Court case which Marta Andreasen LOST (CLICK HERE) shows another reason for her losing her job in The EU was her failure to complete the job for which she was hired.
It was after she had lost her court case that she re-invented herself and passed herself off as a legitimate British MEP candidate (CLICK HERE) and pretended to be a ‘Whistleblower’ before she wrote her rather fancifull novella! G.L-W.))
with deselection. “I am appalled that a senior member of the party should behave in this manner,” he thunders in an email. “You seem unable to work as part of a team or fulfil the commitments you made when adopted as a Ukip candidate.
“You were wrong to state that sitting MEPs will not know whether they are to be reselected until just before the election. The first stage in whatever process is adopted will be for the party to assess, early in 2013, whether its sitting MEPs deserve to be given any further opportunity to represent it in parliament.”
Andreasen had alleged that Hamilton, who was elected to Ukip’s national executive committee last year, and his wife were being lined up for seats in the European Parliament, thanks to manipulation of the selection process for candidates.
“While we learn about this selection procedure, we are also hearing rumours about … the Hamiltons having already been given top positions on the list in … the South West,” said the Spanish accountant.
Hamilton, who lost the fourth safest Tory seat in Britain after the “cash-for-questions affair”, replied: “As you may know, I am a barrister by profession and a very experienced libel litigant. Your email is defamatory and damaging to Christine and my reputations. We require you to send an apology and retraction.”
In a response that she forwarded to every constituency chairman in the south of England, Andresen said: “Neil’s email is an attempt to deflect from the points that I was making. He has [not] attempted to rebuff the claim that the now highly centralised NEC and the party leader have taken over the placement of candidates on the list in something that I have to say really resembles a totalitarian party.”
She added: “It is disgraceful that, as an elected representative of the British people, I am threatened in such a way following a communication to my voters. Ukip executive should not tolerate this behaviour, but I only get silence from that corner.”
For rather more details of this process, seemingly to deselect this Spanish MEP who pretends to duty in the UK for the electorate and boost into position as a leading MEP candidate Neil Hamilton CLICK HERE
A brief read of The UKIP Constitution will show that Marta Andreasen is right in that the total power for selecting the order of prospective MEPs lies in the hand of Nigel Farage in what is effectively a One-Man-Band where all staff appointments are his gift as are positions on The NEC.
Little wonder that his inept puppet Steve Crowther fronts for him producing a smoke screen as he is expected to be a placement by Farage, together with Hamilton, on the South West regional list
.
You will note that a private spat between the foolish UKIP MEP William Earl of Dartmouth; prone, as we all know, to childish tantrums like a spoilt child; and his wife that led to police intervention was very conveniently leaked to the press (CLICK HERE).
This all rather plays into Nigel Farage’s hands as total control of his little group becomes ever more authoritarian and centrally controlled – good reason to deselect those he has no further use for making way for his future praise singers is a stly of leadership well known of those who lack the basic leadership skills and have no competent advisors.
Clearly UKIP has never had any competent PR or press staff in almost 20 years – hence such ineptitude at ensuring sound publicity.
What is the Exit and Survival Plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits when we Leave-The-EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples – they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our borders.
They also have a duty to put in place contingency plans for the collapse of The EUro & The EU or the wishes of the peoples of Britain to Leave-The-EU.
NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for over 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.
Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the Main Stream Media and Snivil Cervants.
The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING, at very best if they ALL agreed they would then still have less than a 10% say in the governance of Britain by The EU.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU’s CAP – In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING towards that unanimous promise!
To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we thus leave our children and the future, with shame!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
01594 – 528 337
PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS: ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS – GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!
I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning to Leave-The-EU for these United Kingdoms and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country & minded that membership of The EU is sucking out the life blood and identity of our Country in a counter patriotic manner and at a cost in hard cash of some £53 Million a day we must consider:
Denying the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs and the no longer relevant MPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour.
Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples, by the peoples of our Country.
It is time that the entire mechanism of governance in these United Kingdoms, which has so clearly failed our Country and our peoples, was radically overhauled and updated to democratic status – failure to change will mean when we Leave-The-EU and/or it finally collapses, as it surely will, we will be no better off as the self same self styled, self enriching clique will be all too willing to betray us as they have done relative to The EU and its fore runners.
To achieve change support rational planning as with The Harrogate Agenda and similar thinking of gravitas.
Demand a Royal Commission on the cost benefits of leaving The EU and of remaining its vassals with a clear ‘Exit & Survival Strategy‘ for implementation OR responsible contingency planning dependent on THEN holding a Referendum on IN or OUT to Let-The-People-Decide!
Major National Papers have clearly seen through UKIP!
And it is gratifying to note they are regularly sourcing facts from this blog & from team Junius!
Clearly they have learned that they can trust the facts presented on our blogs as accurate!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
it seems the mainstream media, who have been aware of the criminality of UKIP MEPs all along, are now starting to speak out and present the truth about this corrupt and distasteful little clique and their self enriching & self serving support for the EU.
It will be noted that UKIP due to incompetent leadership and their personal interests are indirectly aiding the proven criminal Mario Berlesconi to get re-elected via UKIP support for extremists and racists in their EFD Group where the low life extremists and criminals of Italian politics fall under Farage’s leadership!
‘Totalitarian’ Ukip in furious row involving Neil and Christine Hamilton
Marta Andreasen, the Ukip MEP, says it ‘resembles a totalitarian party’ after she is accused of spreading ‘false rumours’ about Neil Hamilton and his wife, Christine.
The dispute centres on Andreasen’s allegation that the Hamiltons, left, are being lined up for seats in the European Parliament Photo: Julian Simmonds/PA
By Richard Eden
7:26AM GMT 06 Jan 2013
Riding high in the opinion polls, the UK Independence Party trumpets itself as the new third force in British politics. Some of its most prominent members are, however, struggling to avoid living up to David Cameron’s description of Ukip as a hotbed of squabbling “fruitcakes”.
Mandrake can disclose that one of Ukip’s members of the European Parliament has become involved in an extraordinary row with Neil and Christine Hamilton, who joined the party amid much fanfare in 2011.
Neil Hamilton, who was elected to Ukip’s national executive committee, has threatened to sue Marta Andreasen for spreading “false rumours” about him and his wife.
Andreasen, a Spanish accountant, who became one of the party’s 12 MEPs in 2009, has refused to apologise. Adding insult to injury, the former European Commission whistleblower has forwarded Hamilton’s furious email to every constituency chairman in the south of England.
The dispute centres on Andreasen’s allegation that the Hamiltons are being lined up for seats in the European Parliament, thanks to manipulation of the selection process for candidates.
“While we learn about this selection procedure, we are also hearing rumours about … the Hamiltons having already been given top positions on the list in … the South West,” she said.
Hamilton, who lost the fourth safest Tory seat in Britain after the “cash-for-questions affair”, thunders: “As you may know, I am a barrister by profession and a very experienced libel litigant. Your email is defamatory and damaging to Christine and my reputations. We require you to send an apology and retraction.”
In her email to the chairmen, Andreasen says: “Neil’s email is an attempt to deflect from the points that I was making. He has [not] attempted to rebuff the claim that the now highly centralised NEC and the party leader have taken over the placement of candidates on the list in something that I have to say really resembles a totalitarian party.”
She adds: “It is disgraceful that, as an elected representative of the British people, I am threatened in such a way following a communication to my voters. Ukip executive should not tolerate this behaviour, but I only get silence from that corner.”
If you go to the newspaper site you can read the comments which show a huge % opposed to UKIP.
If you want more factual details and wish to read the original correspondence CLICK HERE
Hardly surprising as the paper has a fairly patriotic and responsible readership who appreciate thaqt it is likely the 3 or 4% of votes UKIP are likely to get at the ballot boxes for domestic elections will strengthen Labour and leave us even more committed and embroiled in The EU.
Continued membership of The EU clearly serves the self enriching leadership clique of UKIP and their claque of self serving parasites & dishonest & corrupt ne’r do wells.
The Toxic Behaviour of UKIP Befouls EUroScepticism AGAIN
.
Clean EUkip up NOW & make UKIP electable!
.
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque & the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
.
The Toxic Behaviour of UKIP Befouls EUroScepticism AGAIN!
This time with Marta Andreasen & the utterly discreditted ex Tory MP Neill Hamilton airing a very public spat as they fight for position like rats in a corner!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
this time it is two pieces of toxic waste locking horns over the corruption that is UKIP, with the utterly discreditted failed politician and self serving self publicist Neill Hamilton boasting immoderately of his qualification as a barrister to seek to intimidate the equally dishonest and self serving Marta Andreasen, over openly discussed rumours she has published.
Most unedifying, as clearly neither give a damn for EUroScepticism or even UKIP – merely for themselves!
Minded of the huge damage done to the EUroSceptic movement at large by UKIP, its corruption, its racism, its anti homosexuality, its anti Islamism, anti Judaism and seeming terror of foreigners, to judge by its behaviour and the allies it chooses, there is one yet more unedifying spectacle!
Here we see the naked greed and rivalry of the leadership members squabbling, presumably for position, whether that was John Wittacker in the past, who was described by a Judge in Court as ‘without credibility’ whilst Chairman of UKIP or his resignation in revultion at having to support Nigel Farage’s unstable doxy Annabelle Fuller who had breeched UKIP trust to criminally harass a contender in a UKIP selection process.
Subsequently she went on to falsely accuse an MP of groping her in the presence of others when she went to his flat at after midninght and stole his Blackberry & House of Commons Pass.
Or The criminal and dishonest behaviour of Mick McGough, the fantasies and stupidity of the extremist Douglas Denny, the jockeying for position by Nigel Farage in negotiations with The BNP or the lies and deceit of Mark Croucher or even the braggadocio of Stuart Agnew in stealing public funds or Derek Clark’s theft of over £30,000 from the public purse on a par with Tom Wise.
Or of course the willingness of Mike Nattrass to apparently betray people besides his wife and family and prostitute what he claimed as principles, seemingly to fund a pending divorce, as he lept back into bed in Portugal & The EFD!
Indeed, little that UKIP leadership does would seem to bring more than opprobrium on the EUroSceptic movement.
Yet again internecine warfare has broken out amongst the leadership with the utterly discreditted and dishonourable EX MP Neil Hamilton, seemingly in fear of losing his rumoured route to riches by exposure and defending his implausible posturings like any rat in a corner.
It takes a fertile imagination to guess what merit there is in having this odious self publicist on UKIP NEC, as I would put that on a par with the crass appointment of Mick McGough, Andrew Smith, Michael Zuckerman, Peter Reeve, Oxley, Duffy, Croucher, Fuller, Nattrass, Clark, Lott, Legg, Crowther, Collett or any of the other puppets & muppets Farage has appointed as the low lifes in his claque.
A rabble of toxic waste befouling the EUroSceptic cause.
Yet the legend in his own lunchtime and political failure Hamilton chooses to do open battle, regardless of the effect on UKIP or EUroScepticism, against the elected, if proven corrupt and dishonest, Marta Andreasen UKIP MEP like Spanish Fly in the ointment!
Dear Marta, Your e-mail about MEP selection, apparently sent to SE UKIP members, contains a false and defamatory statement about me and Christine:
“While we learn about this selection procedure we are also hearing rumours about ….the Hamiltons having already been given top positions on the list in……. the South West.”
Firstly, Christine has no intention whatever of being a candidate in any elections.
Secondly, it is completely untrue that either of us has been ‘given top positions on the list in the…South West.”
I should be grateful to know why you have chosen to spread false rumours about Christine and me, without either identifying your source or having the courtesy to check the facts with either of us.
As you may know, I am a barrister by profession and a very experienced libel litigant. Your e-mail is defamatory and damaging to Christine and my reputations both within and beyond UKIP in its implication that we would countenance (still less be complicit in) any manipulation of the selection process for our own personal advantage.
Please identify
(1) the source of the ‘rumours’ to which you refer; (2) who made the alleged offer of top positions on the SW list and (3) where, when and by what means such alleged offer was made; (4) Please also supply me with a list of every recipient of the e-mail containing the false statement of which we complain.
Unless you can answer the above questions to our satisfaction, we require you immediately by e-mail to apologise and retract your false statements about us.
We also require you to send an apology and retraction (in terms to be agreed with me) to all recipents of the offending e-mail. You should also warn them that if they, in turn, repeat your false statements, they would also be exposing themselves to the threat of legal action.
I am copying this e-mail to the Party Chairman and Party Secretary for obvious reasons. Yours sincerely,
Neil H
Andreasen’s response is nothing if not informative both of the situation and her willingness to defend her position, whatever damage it does to EUroScepticism, but did anyone ever believe she had climbed on the band wagon for other than personal gain, and were that the case why did she tell so many lies to achieve her income stream?
Dear Members, I have received the email ABOVE from Mr. Neil Hamilton which is self-explanatory.
He asks for apology and retraction: Well, the fact is that I heard the rumours I mentioned in my prior email. However I did not refer to the veracity of the rumours as I cannot verify if they are true or not, nor did I intend to portray them as true. I just wanted to point out how they became more credible to me when I learned about the new selection process. Whilst the rumours are in the public domain, I have not found any rebuttal from any of the parties mentioned.
Furthermore Mr. Neil Hamilton establishes a link which I did not certainly raise in my email when he refers to ” its implication that we would countenance (still less be complicit in) any manipulation of the selection process for our own personal advantage”. I have to say that I was not aware of his or his wife’s involvement in the make over of the MEP selection process when I wrote the email to you. I was told NEC members wanting to stand as MEP would not be involved in defining the selection process or any part of it. I now feel I might have been misinformed.
Overall I feel that Neil´s email is an attempt to deflect from the points that I was making in mine. He has not referred at all to the proposed gagging of MEPs in flagrant disregard for the terms of their mandate. Nor has he attempted to rebuff the claim that the now highly centralised NEC and the party leader have taken over the placement of candidates on the list in something that I have to say really resembles a totalitarian party.
Please note his warning to you, the recipients of my email, at the end of his message.
In any case I think it is disgraceful that as an elected representative of the British people I am threatened in such a way following a communication to my voters and UKIP executive should not tolerate this behaviour….but, in this respect, I only get silence from that corner.
While you will now hear that the procedure I forwarded to you in regards MEP selection is ” only a draft” for discussion…to be modified…inaccurate, etc., the fact is that if I had not made you aware the decision would have been taken in the next few days and be presented to all of us as a “fait accompli”.
Clearly, with the new party constitution, the decision on who will eventually become a UKIP MEP in 2014 has been left in the hands of the Party Leader, which is very different from saying that it is in the hands of the Party (its members). And there lies the problem.
What is the Exit and Survival Plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits when we Leave-The-EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples – they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our borders.
They also have a duty to put in place contingency plans for the collapse of The EUro & The EU or the wishes of the peoples of Britain to Leave-The-EU.
NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for over 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.
Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the Main Stream Media and Snivil Cervants.
The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING, at very best if they ALL agreed they would then still have less than a 10% say in the governance of Britain by The EU.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU’s CAP – In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING towards that unanimous promise!
To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we thus leave our children and the future, with shame!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
01594 – 528 337
PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS: ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS – GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!
I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning to Leave-The-EU for these United Kingdoms and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country & minded that membership of The EU is sucking out the life blood and identity of our Country in a counter patriotic manner and at a cost in hard cash of some £53 Million a day we must consider:
Denying the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs and the no longer relevant MPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour.
Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples, by the peoples of our Country.
It is time that the entire mechanism of governance in these United Kingdoms, which has so clearly failed our Country and our peoples, was radically overhauled and updated to democratic status – failure to change will mean when we Leave-The-EU and/or it finally collapses, as it surely will, we will be no better off as the self same self styled, self enriching clique will be all too willing to betray us as they have done relative to The EU and its fore runners.
To achieve change support rational planning as with The Harrogate Agenda and similar thinking of gravitas.
Demand a Royal Commission on the cost benefits of leaving The EU and of remaining its vassals with a clear ‘Exit & Survival Strategy‘ for implementation OR responsible contingency planning dependent on THEN holding a Referendum on IN or OUT to Let-The-People-Decide!
Mike Nattrass, Marta Andreasen, Gerard Batten, Mick McGough, Douglas Denny, Linda Robson and many others show what trash UKIP really are!!!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
the details of the overt corruption in the fundamental structures of UKIP as exposed by its own senior members below should prove of interest to anyone who believes in British values, ethics, integrity and our future ,as a Country.Astonishingly UKIP have permitted Nigel Farage to seize control of every office and appointment and every selection list in the party it seems.Presumably this has been done so that he can put in place the weak and the useless who will kiss his hand in return for their preferrment and be certain not to try to outshine him. Very much the reason why there isn’t a single honest individual of integrity amongst UKIP’s leadership, its toadies and its staff NOT ONE.
What exactly is the point of the pretence of an NEC if Farage cruises in at the end and announcing how the decision WILL be made as shown by Gerard Batten & Marta Andreasen out of self interest!
You will be unsurprised that we have very little sympathy for these two individuals the odious and outspoken racist Gerard Batten to go by the pamphlets he produces which incline to incite racial hatred based on his personal fear and superstitions.Let us not forget the totally dishonest Marta Andreasen who tries to pass herself off as a self styled whistle blower which was shown to be a pack of lies in Court see CLICK HERE
Both Batten & andreasen were only too happy to take advantage of corrupt UKIP selections and elections in the past!
Details of the rigged selection process will be noted from Linda Robson’s letter, she was a senior member of Gerard Batten’s staff:
I am writing about numerous breaches of the Rules for Candidates by three candidates in London. One of them is Ralph Atkinson, but I will not go into details as I know Gerard Batten has already informed you about his activities.The other two are Marta Andreassen and Tim Worstall who I believe should be disqualified from this election. I am aware that Marta has decided to run in SE Region but believe that she should be disqualified in London and her votes reallocated since she was not entitled to them. This is quite a long email, I’m afraid, but there are an awful lot of rules being broken.The reasons I believe they have both breached the rules are as follows: 1. Eligibility (external, under Electoral Commission Rules)
Under Section 4, Becoming a Candidate, of its European Parliamentary Election Rules, Elcom says that candidates must be:
Quote:
A British citizen…. or a citizen of another member state who is resident in the UK or Gibraltar during the nomination period.
Both Marta and Tim are clearly not UK residents. When asked about this at the London hustings Marta airily replied she was ‘addressing’ this issue. Some people I spoke to afterwards interpreted this (possibly cynically, but in the light of recent developments perhaps not) as roughly meaning ‘ if I get a high place on the list I will find an accommodation address in the UK for the minimum time necessary to meet Elcom criteria’. Tim has apparently said he will move back to the UK ‘soon’. Seems odd since he is reportedly a tax exile who can only spend 183 days in the UK and he is building a house in Portugal for himself and his family and they are currently all resident there.
Christopher Gill’s response to this was that he had not bothered to consult Elcom or check its rules as this was an internal election – unbelievable!
One would hope that UKIP will not be a party to any breach of certainly the spirit, if not the letter, of the Electoral Commission rules but according to Christopher Gill: ‘At a later stage all candidates will of course have to comply with whatever electoral legislation is then in force or otherwise be disqualified from standing’ which seems to confirm the cynics’ idea that an accommodation address will be found for them for the minimum amount of time necessary.
2. Eligibility (internal, under UKIP rules)
Under its constitution UKIP restricts full membership to UK citizens and resident foreign nationals. It also requires its Parliamentary candidates to be fully paid-up members in good standing.
Marta could therefore not possibly be a full member at the time her nomination was made and must therefore be ineligible.
Christopher Gill says she is an Associate Member but cannot tell me exactly how many other Associate members we have in the Party and indeed how many of them there were before Marta was given this (possibly) unique status.
Certainly nowhere on the membership application form is there an option to become an Associate Member. The UKIP constitution also states (16.4) ‘All parliamentary candidates must be paid-up members of the Party in good standing…’ – no mention of associate members there, I see.
3. Same Proposer
Marta and Tim had the same proposer – Lord Pearson. This is expressly forbidden but Christopher Gill has told me categorically he is not prepared to take any action as he felt ‘Lord P. was only being helpful’! Apparently breaking rules is OK if it is Lord P. doing it for Marta and Tim!
4. CRB checks
All candidates were mandated to have a full, advanced CRB check (not something vaguely similar in another country, but the full UK version). Indeed, £41 of the £250 deposit was for this purpose. So important are these checks considered to be when identifying suitable candidates that the London Assembly candidates list was delayed for two months last year because of the requirement by the leadership, at a late stage, for all candidates to have these checks. You will all recall Nigel Farage stressing the importance of these checks and saying that if we had them in place in 2004 they would have picked up Ashley Mote’s transgressions – therefore it was imperative that all candidates must have them in 2008.
But to have a CRB check you need a UK address at which you reside and for which you can produce utility bills. Once again neither Tim (who I believe can only spend a certain amount of days in the UK, which would indicate he is non-resident for tax purposes) nor Marta (who lives in Barcelona) would have been able to obtain a UK advanced CRB check as neither is resident in the UK. Why was an exception made for them?
Very odd reply from CG to this one ‘Marta has never made any attempt to hide the fact that she lives in Barcelona’!! and ‘Tim lives in Bath’. However, TW told me that although he owns a flat in Bath this was rented out and he was living in Portugal with his family.
5. Candidates standing in more than one Region
It was clearly required that candidates make it clear, both at the hustings and by other means, if they are standing in more than one Region. Marta certainly didn’t mention it at the London Hustings, nor is it in her published candidate details. Many of these members who might otherwise vote for a certain candidate would be far less inclined to do so if they knew he/she actually considered our Region second best.
Christopher Gill’s response was: ‘The point you make about declaring an interest in another region is well made – in a message to all MEP Interview Panel Chairmen dated 10th July David Challice highlighted the fact that the onus was upon candidates to publicly disclose if they were standing in more than one region. This instruction seems to have been ignored in at least one other region to my certain knowledge and will feature in my report’.
What use is ‘featuring in his report’ going to be? The damage has been done and another rule broken.
I know that the fact the shortlists were published on the UKIP website should apparently have enabled members to do some detective work and identify who was standing in more than one Region – but again this does not seem to comply with the spirit of the rule or why it was made, as very few of our members ever look at the website, let alone delve deeply into the members section, and I doubt one in a thousand of our ‘ordinary’ members, as opposed to those of us more involved with the Party, is aware of multi-region candidates.
6. Electoral Roll number
All candidates were required to give their UK electoral roll number on the application form. Unless they have given a false address, neither of these candidates can possibly be on the UK electoral register.
Christopher Gill acknowledges this is a problem for MA which should have been noticed and addressed earlier, although he contends that TW is a UK resident (wonder if HMRC know this?) but again refuses to take any action.
From this litany you will realise why many of us are extremely sceptical about the validity of these two candidates. At every turn it would appear that exceptions and accommodations are being made, and rules broken and ignored, to get them on, and keep them on, the candidate lists. I would appreciate a full explanation of why they were exempted from the stringent criteria that the rest of us had to comply with in order to be considered and would ask the NEC to disqualify both of them.
To paraphrase George Orwell: ‘Why are some candidates more equal than others?’ I am absolutely sure that if when I had applied I had said :
I’m not a UK resident
I’m not a fully paid-up member of UKIP
I can’t get a CRB check
My proposer has also proposed someone else
I’m not on the UK electoral Register; and
I have no intention of mentioning I will be standing in two Regions
I believe I would have been very firmly rejected – and rightly so.
Such chicanery will not play well with Elcom or our other enemies in the media and the community at large. And there are a number of people already aware of these facts, and upset about them. Indeed some of these questions have already been asked on the Democracy Forum – whose members number many who most certainly do not wish us well – so are thus in the public domain . This really could badly damage our chances in the 2009 elections and we should not be putting ourselves in this position.
I would formally ask the NEC to disqualify these two candidates from standing in London Region.
Please do not think I have anything personal against Marta – on the contrary, my limited acquaintance with her has always been a pleasure. And Tim seems a personable sort of fellow. But rules are being broken and distorted to keep these two candidates on the list and this is simply WRONG.I have already informed Christopher Gill that should this request be ignored then I wish to withdraw from the London list, and whilst I will do everything to ensure Gerard is elected I will not campaign or fund-raise if Atkinson, Andreassen or Worstall remain on the List.
I have also told him that I want my £250 returned as this has obviously been taken from me under false pretences. The false pretext in this case being that all candidates would be treated equally and subject to the same rules, which is patently not the case.
It is also worth remembering the ways in which UKIP leadership chose to corrupt, rig and manipulate results as shown in the Party’s own report drawn up by the Party Returning Officer at CLICK HEREAnd Mr Batten was content to remain silent when complaints were brought to his attention regarding the same subject.
They are now, in my opinion, only expressing concerns because both their seats are due to be handed over to Farage’s toadies in 2014.Do excuse my scepticism perhaps even cynicism based on bitter experience and close observation of the underhand behaviour of UKIP’s leadership team and its weak and low life gofers.Frankly the corrupt around Farage have made a rod for their own backs – a problem the electorate have clearly noted and hence the constant and risible results UKIP gets in domestic elections whilst the media play them for fools and try to use them to bring pressure on the Government.Let us hope Britain survives long enough to Leave-The-EU and these corrupt self serving low lifes behind – though as a result of almost 100 years of idiots for politicians and the final straw of the economic illiteracy of Gordon Brown & the war crimes and lies of Tony Blair and his cabinet survival is by no means a certainty.
Someone has to find a way to repay some £10Trillion in debt and forward fund the overblown public services _ I fear it may prove impossible
See:
I have recently received information from Gerard Batten (see below) about the procedure that the NEC will be implementing for the coming 2014 European elections.I am of the opinion that the process, under which I was put second on the South East list in 2009, was a satisfactory one, notably in regards the involvement of the regional committees and the exercise of democratic rights by the members. Under the new rules, the Regional Committees will not establish the list of candidates; this will be determined by the NEC after certain interviews. More importantly the local party members will not have any say over the placement on the list, who you would prefer to see elected. Instead this will be done under the auspices of the NEC, but in reality by the Party Leader.A sitting MEP will not know if they will be permitted to stand again until literally just before the polls, giving no time to prepare or run a campaign or operate in a normal way. I value and respect your views as local members and activists. If you no longer want me to represent you, then that should be your choice.
But what has prompted me to communicate with you at this point in time, is the fact that this NEC has decided that for the period 2013-2014, no sitting MEPs will be allowed to communicate with you on any level. This is ostensibly to allow a level playing field for other candidates.
This restriction on communication is against my mandate, and therefore illegal, and prevents me as an MEP and you as a party activist or member from doing our jobs, effectively shutting down the region for twelve months in terms of campaign preparation and fund-raising.
As UKIP members and activists we are justly proud of our position in favour of individual freedom and minimal state interference. It is why we work against the anti-democratic laws and the government by decree emerging from the European Union.
I work everyday to uphold these principles and further our cause locally and at national level through constituency work and our activities in the media.
While we learn about this selection procedure we are also hearing rumours about Patrick O’Flynn and the Hamiltons having already been given top positions on the list in the South East and South West.
I want to see UKIP getting seats at the next European and the General elections. It is one of the things I have been working for since I was elected, second only to the objective of getting the UK out of the EU. But these arrangements are not the way to achieve it. There is a danger of coercion and cronyism, which should have no place in our party.
I am writing to you to bring these concerns to your notice, and ask you to speak out to the party leadership if you share my concerns at the direction that the party seems to be taking. I also wish to say that I intend to continue to communicate with you to the extent that it is necessary for my functioning as an MEP, regardless of any possible sanction.
If you agree, I ask you to show your support by writing to the leadership to demand a more democratic and transparent selection process which allows your voice to be heard and respected.
This would also have the benefit of allowing candidates to be selected in good time, and for sitting MEPs to function effectively both as MEPs and as candidates.
It seems ironic that a party which stands on a platform of opposing the undemocratic decrees of the institutions of Brussels is in danger of mirroring those very same methods. Thank you for your time and trouble in reading this, and for your continuing support.
Sincerely,
Marta Andreasen
——————————————————————————
Then there is this letter from Batten which I received earlier this month:
Gerard Batten MEP
Report to the UKIP MEPs on the UKIP NEC meeting
3rd December 2012
MEP Selection 2014.
This subject arose towards the end of the meeting. Party Chairman, Steve Crowther, gave verbal report outlining the proposals for MEP selection in 2014. He said that written proposals would be circulated later.
I summarise what he said (I hope accurately) as follows:
Objectives
These are threefold:
1. To ensure all MEP list are made up of quality candidates.
2. To maximise the enthusiasm of the activists and members
3. To avoid the perception that the Leader has picked the candidates
The Process
1. This would begin in the New Year, and finalise just before the 2014 elections begin. The process is summarised as follows:
2. Nominations to open in early 2013
3. Applications for one Region only
4. Assessment of candidates for March 2013
5. Assessment to include: retrospective assessment of existing MEP performance; psychometric testing; media testing; etc
6. Provisional selection would be by a ballot of the Region’s members, but this would only decide the list not the placing on the list
7. NEC to discuss candidates if any problems perceived
8. Regional list places to be decided by a ballot of the members in the first quarter of 2014
9. Formal adopting of candidates by the NEC just before the campaign begins
Further conditions
Steve said that during the period 2013-2014 sitting MEPs would not be allowed to communicate with their Regional membership as this gave them an unfair advantage. Not deciding the places on the list for twelve month it was proposed by Steve that this would stimulate competition in the Region between the candidates in terms of positive activity.
I made the obvious point that MEPs not being able to communicate with their Regions would impede them from doing their job, and would impact adversely on the members’ perception of their performance. It is also totally impractical since MEPs cannot be prevented from communicating with their constituents who may, or may not be, UKIP members. I made the point that sitting MPs and MEPs etc would always have an advantage over other candidates (unless they were seen to underperform) and that other parties usually had some kind of preferential system for them.
I repeated my view that the best system would be as used before: for the Regional members to rank the candidates twelve months before by a ballot; if the lead candidates proved themselves unsuitable before the election they could be removed.
Paul Nuttall made the point that this process would effectively shut down the Region for twelve months in terms of campaign preparation and fund-raising.
At this point I had to leave the meeting.
I understand from others at the meeting that Nigel then returned to the meeting (having been absent for this part of the agenda) and on being told what had been discussed said that a secondary ballot with members ranking the candidates was unnecessary and the ranking would the decision of the Leader and NEC. Nigel also thought that we should have the flexibility to slot people in at the end of the process.
.
Then of course there was the anti homosexual ranting of UKIP NEC member Douglas Denny.
The criminal spamming and attempted harrassment by NEC member and serial liar and cheat as proven Mick McGough.
The astonishing efforts of Farage to try to rehabilitate the corrupt and disgraced failed Tory MP Neil Hamilton.The fact that we reliably hear that every UKIP MEP is currently under investigation over financial irregularities by the British Police and OLAF – Interestingly to date not only are OLAF Not interested in the financial activities of Nikki Sinclaire but The WQest Midlands Police have clearly been unable to establish any culpible deliberate offence in her accounts and some indication may be that after 2.1/2 years they have taken absolutely no action and I gather there is every possibility John Ison and others have realistic expectation of being charged and prosecuted – interestingly it seems that the odious little John Ison is no longer a member of UKIP whether by his choice to distance himself or in a duplicitous attempt by UKIP to disown his behaviour!
Consider the self serving duplicity and betrayal by Mike Nattrass CLICK HERE but lets face it once you are thrown out by your wife for your stupidity and you show that for lack of brains in your big head you have destroyed people’s lives by thinking with the blood in your little head I guess after that – Even if you have openly boasted of spending £!M in cash on your Portuguese villa where you spend so much time on ‘holiday’ – after that betraying your allies, friends, electorate, members and Country by trying to buy your re-election prostituting your views and values for personal gain AND of course because without having someone else make your choices almost everything turns to rubbish.
The betrayal of Team Sinclaire and the electorate by Mike Nattrass is beneath contempt and it is worth noting that it is quite astonishing just how much publicity Team Sinclaire have generated for the Referendum and inspite of the endless poisonous sabotage by UKIP who have done so very little towards the campaign and considering the £Millions of public money they have so blatantly stolen or at very least guided to their personal gain.And of course Mike Nattrass’ toxic betrayals.
UKIP are in almost every aspect a disgrace with their extremist associates and their overt racism and their openly anti homosexual stance as they support anti Jewish, Holocaust deniers and racist criminals.
Now we see the spectacle of UKIP having to close its own incestuous supposedly in house Forum to hide the fact of just how barking mad are some of their members and how despite rigid censorship even their NEC members are prone to rant and vilely at that!It seems that the latest of many i8diotic rants from the fantasist and fool Douglas Denny was the final straw with his outpouring of hate and fear of homosexuals and ever permitting them to have legitimised marriages or some such.
The Guardian, I gather, were fascinated by this odious ranting not to mention the streams of abuse and the near institutionalising of attacks on Nikki Sinclaire who had already left the party, openly stating her reason to be revulsion as it was so bound up in racism and extremist politics and involved in the corruption of their EU partners in the EFD – Cash cow as that may be for Nigel Farage!
The Guardian would seem to have rather broadened the issue, stealing something of a march on the serious researchers of the more serious and plausible media – whose time is coming!To quote The Guardian:
I gather divorces are very expensive for philanderers so to buy friends extremism, racism, anti homosexuality and corruption are just details!
Mike Nattrass, MEP (Photo credit: Wikipedia)
Here is what Mike Nattrass really thinks of Farage & UKIP:
Dear All,
It may be too late but after all these years I can no longer stay silent.In the previous Leadership Election I, together with all candidates EXCEPT LORD PEARSON were rubbished by Nigel Farage on TV and elsewhere. This ensured the election of Nigel’s puppet Lord Pearson and allowed Nigel to continue to be the face of the party. That is Nigel’s view of the election rules and I think it is only fair and high time that his methods were exposed, USING HIS OWN RULES.
Nigel already Leads the parliamentary Group and when he is also elected Leader this will amount to total control. Increasingly I am hearing the word “Spiv” used to describe him, from people who are not members but see his image. I am concerned that the UKIP party brand will be tarnished, even holed below the water line, by his monopoly of power.
Whilst Nigel is a very good speaker, he is also a control freak. He grabs all UKIP publicity to the detriment of any other UKIP spokesperson or MEP. He employs assistants with the MEP’s budgets without allowing those MEPs any say. This, despite the fact that UKIP MEPs demanded a chance to interview those who were being employed with their money. Nigel agreed, then totally ignored that promise. Consequently he has his own “group funded” team around him and all “hiring” takes place via his close friend Godfrey Bloom MEP (this person is said to be banned by 4 hotels for urinating in the corridors)
Nigel’s lack of experience in good staff management and his refusal to allow MEP consultation is complimented by the morals of an Alley Cat (and I will not go there). I have always said that this does not matter, because so long as we are all in the trench together with guns pointing at the enemy all are welcome. But he shot Nikki Sinclaire in the back when she became an MEP, for no Party reason, while she was giving all the effort she could give. She was expelled as a UKIP MEP for pointing out the Group facts. He does not like truth or competition.
I have put a lot of money, time and energy into promoting UKIP in the West Midlands and I watched it wrecked at the General Election by Nigel’s chosen people (Lords Pearson and Monckton) who appeared from nowhere and failed to understand our basic strategy or even comprehend from where our votes are derived. Worse, Nikki, who has vast energy at election time, was stopped from being a UKIP MEP by Nigel and has not been given a chance to defend herself or to state her case (legal matters are pending). She and I were told by Lord Pearson not to get involved in the election and not to fund the campaign. In fact you will see that we both made considerable financial contributions but our campaign was deeply damaged. Also the subsequent enquiry into the campaign, requested by the WM candidates, was “dealt with” by Monckton (who thought I was behind it) and because of this we have had resignations from very keen activists.
All this West Midlands destruction because Nigel hates Nikki and wants to rubbish me!! Do you know how much money Nigel has contributed to this party…next to nothing.
I found allegations of fraud were brought against me when I stood for Leadership. These were in the Sunday Times. They melted away afterwards and had no foundation in truth, but they did the job intended.(My legal case against the Times is pending) Nigel has had a number of very real cases against him.. funny how that word does not get out.
My first major annoyance with Nigel’s manipulations stem from the time when I was first elected in 2004 and all UKIP MEPs had a meeting to agree three very basic points. One was that we could not employ wives (other Parties did) and this was agreed. In fact my wife comes to each Parliament and does not get paid (not even travel expenses) and I said that she wanted to contribute any proper payment to the Party, but no, rules were rules and she could be paid nothing. It was then later exposed that Nigel’s wife was being secretly paid out of his budget, breaking this rule. He did not seek any permission (to change his own rule) from the MEPs. He was simply “caught out” with both hands in the till. I fear that the whole Parliamentary Group in the EU is run for Nigel’s financial and public image. I left that ugly group.
Nigel has derailed every leader since the very first, except peacemaker Jeffery Titford (under whom I was Party Chairman). He is therefore hated by them all (except JT). plus never to be leader Kilroy Silk who must feel that Nigel gave him a wrong prospectus.
I expect that Nigel will be elected leader as no one else is effectively allowed to stand without a spin campaign against them. I can see less MEPs in the UKIP squad when he does win.
There is a false attack on Tim Congdon from Boggers 4 UKIP, this must mean he is a real threat! Good.
Minded of the huge damage done to the EUroSceptic movement at large by UKIP, its corruption, its racism, its anti homosexuality, its anti Islamism, anti Judaism and seeming terror of foreigners, to judge by its behaviour and the allies it chooses, there is one yet more unedifying spectacle!Here we see the naked greed and rivalry of the leadership members squabbling, presumably for position, whether that was John Wittacker in the past, who was described by a Judge in Court as ‘without credibility’ whilst Chairman of UKIP or his resignation in revultion at having to support Nigel Farage’s unstable doxy Annabelle Fuller who had breeched UKIP trust to criminally harass a contender in a UKIP selection process.Subsequently she went on to falsely accuse an MP of groping her in the presence of others when she went to his flat at after midninght and stole his Blackberry & House of Commons Pass.
Or The criminal and dishonest behaviour of Mick McGough, the fantasies and stupidity of the extremist Douglas Denny, the jockeying for position by Nigel Farage in negotiations with The BNP or the lies and deceit of Mark Croucher or even the braggadocio of Stuart Agnew in stealing public funds or Derek Clark’s theft of over £30,000 from the public purse on a par with Tom Wise.
Or of course the willingness of Mike Nattrass to apparently betray people besides his wife and family and prostitute what he claimed as principles, seemingly to fund a pending divorce, as he lept back into bed in Portugal & The EFD!
Indeed, little that UKIP leadership does would seem to bring more than opprobrium on the EUroSceptic movement.Yet again internecine warfare has broken out amongst the leadership with the utterly discreditted and dishonourable EX MP Neil Hamilton, seemingly in fear of losing his rumoured route to riches by exposure and defending his implausible posturings like any rat in a corner.It takes a fertile imagination to guess what merit there is in having this odious self publicist on UKIP NEC, as I would put that on a par with the crass appointment of Mick McGough, Andrew Smith, Michael Zuckerman, Peter Reeve, Oxley, Duffy, Croucher, Fuller, Nattrass, Clark, Lott, Legg, Crowther, Collett or any of the other puppets & muppets Farage has appointed as the low lifes in his claque.
A rabble of toxic waste befouling the EUroSceptic cause.
Yet the legend in his own lunchtime and political failure Hamilton chooses to do open battle, regardless of the effect on UKIP or EUroScepticism, against the elected, if proven corrupt and dishonest, Marta Andreasen UKIP MEP like Spanish Fly in the ointment!
Dear Marta, Your e-mail about MEP selection, apparently sent to SE UKIP members, contains a false and defamatory statement about me and Christine: “While we learn about this selection procedure we are also hearing rumours about ….the Hamiltons having already been given top positions on the list in……. the South West.” Firstly, Christine has no intention whatever of being a candidate in any elections.
Secondly, it is completely untrue that either of us has been ‘given top positions on the list in the…South West.”
I should be grateful to know why you have chosen to spread false rumours about Christine and me, without either identifying your source or having the courtesy to check the facts with either of us.
As you may know, I am a barrister by profession and a very experienced libel litigant. Your e-mail is defamatory and damaging to Christine and my reputations both within and beyond UKIP in its implication that we would countenance (still less be complicit in) any manipulation of the selection process for our own personal advantage.
Please identify
(1) the source of the ‘rumours’ to which you refer; (2) who made the alleged offer of top positions on the SW list and (3) where, when and by what means such alleged offer was made; (4) Please also supply me with a list of every recipient of the e-mail containing the false statement of which we complain.
Unless you can answer the above questions to our satisfaction, we require you immediately by e-mail to apologise and retract your false statements about us.
We also require you to send an apology and retraction (in terms to be agreed with me) to all recipents of the offending e-mail. You should also warn them that if they, in turn, repeat your false statements, they would also be exposing themselves to the threat of legal action.
I am copying this e-mail to the Party Chairman and Party Secretary for obvious reasons. Yours sincerely,
Neil H
Andreasen’s response is nothing if not informative both of the situation and her willingness to defend her position whatever damage it does to EUroScepticism, but did anyone ever believe she had climbed on the band wagon for other than personal gain, and were that the case why did she tell so many lies to achieve her income stream?Dear Members, I have received the email ABOVE from Mr. Neil Hamilton which is self-explanatory. He asks for apology and retraction: Well, the fact is that I heard the rumours I mentioned in my prior email. However I did not refer to the veracity of the rumours as I cannot verify if they are true or not, nor did I intend to portray them as true. I just wanted to point out how they became more credible to me when I learned about the new selection process. Whilst the rumours are in the public domain, I have not found any rebuttal from any of the parties mentioned.
Furthermore Mr. Neil Hamilton establishes a link which I did not certainly raise in my email when he refers to ” its implication that we would countenance (still less be complicit in) any manipulation of the selection process for our own personal advantage”. I have to say that I was not aware of his or his wife’s involvement in the make over of the MEP selection process when I wrote the email to you. I was told NEC members wanting to stand as MEP would not be involved in defining the selection process or any part of it. I now feel I might have been misinformed.
Overall I feel that Neil´s email is an attempt to deflect from the points that I was making in mine. He has not referred at all to the proposed gagging of MEPs in flagrant disregard for the terms of their mandate. Nor has he attempted to rebuff the claim that the now highly centralised NEC and the party leader have taken over the placement of candidates on the list in something that I have to say really resembles a totalitarian party.
Please note his warning to you, the recipients of my email, at the end of his message.
In any case I think it is disgraceful that as an elected representative of the British people I am threatened in such a way following a communication to my voters and UKIP executive should not tolerate this behaviour….but, in this respect, I only get silence from that corner.
While you will now hear that the procedure I forwarded to you in regards MEP selection is ” only a draft” for discussion…to be modified…inaccurate, etc., the fact is that if I had not made you aware the decision would have been taken in the next few days and be presented to all of us as a “fait accompli”.
Clearly, with the new party constitution, the decision on who will eventually become a UKIP MEP in 2014 has been left in the hands of the Party Leader, which is very different from saying that it is in the hands of the Party (its members). And there lies the problem.
The corruption of some of EUkip’s leadership, their anti UKIP claque & the NEC is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!
.
Nigel Farage: a one-man band?
An embarrassing question when posed by Michael Crick of Channel 4 News!
Particularly in the light of the simple answer and lack of any sign of professionalising UKIP to be fit for purpose!
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,you may well have noted Michael Crick’s comments on UKIP and its conference in Birmingham City Hall and noted his refernce to Oswold Mosley and the arch traitor EU Commissioner Roy Jenkins who was charged with founding a pro EU political party in Britain ( the stench of which lingers on in the lies of Nick Clegg and his cronies) both were allumni of the platform in question also his.
It will also not have escaped your notice he calls Farage the ‘Dear Leader’ in allusion no doubt to the extremist and non democratic Korean leaders.The parade of has beens and any who will praise Farage has been notable at the conference – sad that the only converts are either elderly with their careers long finished, those dumped by the Tories like Roger Helmer & the Hamilton double act and the odd self serving councillor who has personal ambitions but seem to lack the abilities to gain selection with the Tories!
As a long term supporter of UKIP and possibly foolishly still in hope that it will be cleaned up and democratised sufficiently to be fit for purpose as there is no other party of any size representing the best interests of Britain and the wishes of the informed electorate to Leave-The-EU and its damaging and self serving Germanno Frankish axis of self interest and centralised undemocratic power, I commented on the internet as follows:
Hi,
as a long term supporter of the basic aim to Leave-The-EU I note Michael Crick’s damning of UKIP with faint praise and lampoon verging on ridicule – he is sadly right to do so.
UKIP was our best hope but the insecurity of their leader has led to an ever increasing power grab on his part and the eviceration of all intellectual rigor or any shining star of gravitas.
The nihilism of not polishing but polishing off stars has rendered the party unfit for purpose and led to a series of low grade nere do wells at the helm with a track record of criminality and even prison that places them beyon the pale.
That UKIP’s officers are all appointed on the grounds that they support Farage has made the party like a pyramid balanced on its head with Farage at its tip and garbage piled high on top of his undeniable talents as an entertainer.
It is easy for highly paid exploiters of the public purse to buils a small army of funded secret police funded by their ambitions and also pockets! UKIP has done this with a host of cowardly and anonymous defenders attacking anyone who dares speak out (as the duplicitous Marta Andreasen has shown and as Nikki Sinclaire has proved).
There is no doubt that UKIP is on the rise as from 3 or 4%, which is their average in domestic elec tions there is nowhere else to go but up! let us not forget with Roger Knappman as leader UKIP had its greatest breakthrough & almost 30,000 members.
UKIP with Farage is indeed striving to rise to those heady days yet his Junta has only managed, a claimed, 17,000 members and out of 19,500 seats in British politics has still not managed to get more than 30 by election and are no closer to having an MP elected than 15 years ago!
The main rise seen is the rise in income of those willing to back Farage and association with racists, criminals, anti Jewish, anti homosexual Holocaust deniers in the gutters of EU politics in the ‘gang’ Farage controls as a pan EU politician in the EFD Group where notably support for Anders Breivik was not heard but published and no action taken.
Sadly in being elected to The EU these small men have it seems been overwhelmed with greed and sold out on any ethics or principles rallying behind Farage’s foolish posturings and unparliamentary neme calling so reminiscent of the class failures who rallied behind the boy who made rude noises when teachers back was turned.
UKIP does indeed have HOPE of a future but as Marta Andreasen makes clear not as a dictatorship run by a one man band and those he has bought and paid for.
Regards, Greg_L-W.
At the moment I could not bring myself to vote for UKIP as the stench of racism, corruption, bullying, defamation, cowardice and self enrichment is too great.I have for some time advocated not spoiling ones ballot paper by sullying it with support for those on offer but rather stating ones own principles and writing on the ballot paper Leave-The-EU thus denying our self serving political elite the mandate they claim all be it only personally.
At the moment I am inclined to support Nikki Sinclaire’s initiative for a full, fair and equally funded IN / OUT Referendum but that is very much conditional on the support for a full Royal Commission and provision of a mature, intelligent ‘Exit & Survival Strategy’ when we Leave-The-EU – an aim I am assured Team Sinclaire are working towards.
Meanwhile I would commend all to pay particular attention to ‘The Harrogate Agenda’ and similar initiatives as without fundamental change in our system of Governance wehen we Leave-The-EU we will be no better off as self serving politicians will still be in a position to betray the electorate for their own party gain – Hence I have long advocated a far greater level of Independent representation rather than Parties acting on a mob handed self protective scam, again and again.
Your thoughts?
.
Regards,
Greg_L-W..
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
TO LEAVE THE EU
What is the Exit and Survival Plan for these United Kingdoms to maximise on the many benefits when we Leave-The-EU. It is the DUTY of our Politicians and Snivil Cervants to ensure the continuity, liberty and right to self determination of our peoples – they have a DUTY to protect against crime and secure both our food and our border.
They also have a duty to put in place contingency plans for the collapse of The EUro & The EU or the wishes of the peoples of Britain to Leave-The-EU.
NONE of these DUTIES has a single British politician upheld for over 40 years. They have drawn their incomes fraudulently and dishonesty.
Politicians are failing to tell the truth, but so are almost all wanabe Politicians, the MSM and Snivil Cervants.
The fact is that even if EVERY British MEP wanted change in The EU it would achieve NOTHING, at very best if they ALL agreed they would then still have less than a 10% say in the governance of Britain by The EU.
Every single British Politician, of EVERY Party, elected since before we joined the EUropean Common Market, has promised to change The EU’s CAP – In 40 Years they have achieved absolutely NOTHING towards that unanimous!
To try to put a value on OUR Freedom is as futile as floccipaucinihilipilification and as odious as the metissage of our societies, as we rummage in the ashes of our ancestors dreams, sacrifices and achievements, the flotsam of our hopes and the jetsam of our lives, consider the Country and Anglosphere which we thus leave our children and the future, with shame!
Regards,
Greg L-W.
01594 – 528 337
PLEASE POST THIS TAG AS FOLLOWS: ON YOUR eMAILS & BLOGS, FORUM POSTINGS & MAILINGS – GET THE MESSAGE TO THE PEOPLE IT IS OUR BEST HOPE AS WHOEVER IS APPOINTED WILL MAKE NO DIFFERENCE AS PROVED!
I SUGGEST – since there is clearly no political party of repute, advocating or campaigning to Leave-The-EU for these United Kingdoms and restoration of our independent sovereign, democracy, with Justice & the right to self determination in a free country & minded that membership of The EU is sucking out the life blood and identity of our Country in a counter patriotic manner and at a cost in hard cash of some £53 Million a day we must consider:
Denying the self seeking & meaningless wanabe MEPs and the no longer relevant MPs the Mythical Mandate for which they clamour.
Diktat is imposed from The EU but Law should be made at Westminster, for our Country & our Peoples by the peoples of our Country.
It is time that the entire mechanism of governance in these United Kingdoms, which has so clearly failed our Country and our peoples, was radically overhauled and updated to democratic status – failure to change will mean when we Leave-The-EU and/or it finally collapses, as it surely will, we will be no better off as the self same self styled, self enriching clique will be all too willing to betray us as they have done relative to The EU and its fore runners.
The Sunday Mercury coverage (CLICK The Pic. to view larger to read text!).
Also covered in The Sun AND The Sun’s supportive editorial.
.
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
yet again Nikki Sinclaire‘s team make a huge effort to support the cause of Leave-The-EUAnother huge and impressive first for Team Sinclaire where the first huge ‘RESULT’ was presenting a petition of well over 100,000 signatures and a supporting poll delivered to Downing Street and registered at Parliament forcing Parliament to have a full blown debate on Britain’s relationship and the majority view that we will be ‘Better-Off-Out‘.That was a year ago and then a new petition was delivered on Thursday this week with another 100,000 signatures demanding an IN / OUT Referendum under the slogan ‘LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE‘.This latest petition was written up as an article in The Sun last Sunday and in The Express on Monday and also covered in The Sun editorial. Also covered in other media. (The articles can be viewed and read in previous blogs on this site).
This petition is once again given gravitas and supported by a poll showing 56% of the electorate want an IN / OUT Referendum and 71% do NOT trust their own politicians on issues relative to the EU.
Now today we note the new announcement in The Sun and trailed yesterday based upon a leak on my Twitter!
CAMPAIGNERS fighting for a referendum over Britain’s EU membership have formed a party to take on the Tories.
Candidates have been lined up to stand in the European elections unless PM David Cameron offers a straight in-or-out vote.
TV’s Apprentice contestant Katie Hopkins is among those who will fight all 73 UK seats for the single-issue “We Demand A Referendum Party”.
It is a major headache for the PM — as a poll showed it could win enough popular support to wipe out the Tories.
It has been set up by the campaign which last week handed a 100,000-name petition to Number 10. A third of adults said they would vote for it in the 2014 Euro elections, according to a YouGov poll. That would make it the largest British group in the parliament.
It is seen as the rebirth of Sir James Goldsmith’s Referendum Party, which cost the Tories dear in the 1997 General Election. It is even using Sir James’s slogan for its ballot paper listing: “Let the people decide.”
Mrs Hopkins said: “Our Government is frightened of asking the question about whether we want to be in or out of Europe because they’re frightened that they’ll not like the answer.”
– EX-Chancellor Lord Lamont dealt a blow to the PM as he said the Tories were more popular after Black Wednesday 20 years ago — when the UK left the European Exchange Rate Mechanism — than today.
to view the original article CLICK HERETo view more details on this issue view my preceding blogs and also:To quote The Sun’s columnist Toby Young:
Jose Manuel Barroso, the unelected leader of the EC, announced to a stunned European Parliament on Wednesday that he would bring forward plans for a fiscal, economic and political union before the next European elections.
That means changes to the European Union’s treaties could be set in motion at any point after June 8, 2014, something that would automatically trigger a vote in the United Kingdom as a result of the “referendum lock” in the 2011 EU Act.
It’s no secret that David Cameron is hoping to put off a referendum until after our next General Election, not least because it would rupture the Coalition and divide his own party. But following Barroso’s speech he probably won’t have a choice. For Eurosceptics like me, this is fantastic news.
I’ve long held the view that the sooner we have a referendum on our continuing membership of the EU, the better.
To view the full article CLICK HERE& to quote the leader of the new group Nikki Sinclaire:
MEP NIKKI SINCLAIRE FOUNDS NEW POLITICAL MOVEMENT
Leading Activisys of New Movement
A NEW A new political movement has been launched to allow British people the opportunity to demand a referendum at the European Elections in 2014.
It comes in the wake of a YouGov opinion poll that shows a third of UK adults said they would ignore party loyalty to vote for an entity whose sole manifesto was to urge for a straight forward In-Out referendum.
The movement has been registered with the Electoral Commission as “We Demand a Referendum” and will carry the slogan imbedded in the emblem from Jimmy Goldsmith’s Referendum Party of “Let the People Decide”.
“We Demand a Referendum” has been set up by the Campaign for a Referendum team that delivered two petitions totalling more than 220,000 signatures to Downing Street and also forced a parliamentary debate last year that led to a huge Tory rebellion.
It is a single-issue political body that challenges David Cameron to call an In-Out referendum by 2014.
A YouGov poll last week showed that 65% of Tory voters want a referendum – much more than the average of 56% from all voters.
“We Demand a Referendum” will be fielding candidates in every region of the country and could take between eight and 22 seats in the European Elections, according to the YouGov poll commissioned by the body’s chairman – West Midlands MEP Nikki Sinclaire.
Katie Hopkins and Nikki Sinclaire MEP
One of those candidates will be former Apprentice star Katie Hopkins who will be the lead candidate in the South West. Katie will need only 10% of the vote to be elected under the system used in the election.
All candidates will share a single aim – to force a decisive referendum on the issue of Europe by sending a strong message to the government ahead of the General Election in 2015.
“The Politicians have failed the people on the EU,” said Nikki Sinclaire.
“Promise after promise has been broken by all parties and it is time for the people to empower themselves and demand a referendum!
“Why are they so afraid of the people? Why won’t they let us decide? And why do they continue to patronise us with their ‘we know better’ attitude?”
TV personality and businesswoman Katie Hopkins added: “Sometimes tough questions have to be asked.
“I often hear people say ‘I didn’t ask because I was frightened I might not like the answer’ and I think this is true for the referendum on Europe.
“I believe that our government is frightened of asking the question about whether we want to be in or out of Europe, because they are frightened that they will not like the answer.”
Katie added: “The importance of forcing an EU referendum is far bigger than any party. We strive to go beyond party politics and, as our campaign slogan says, we want to Let the People Decide!”
We Demand a Referendum will hold its inaugural conference at Westminster Central Hall in London on Friday October 5.
YOUGOV POLL:
Candidates from the Conservatives, Labour, Liberal Democrats, UK Independence Party and other parties will be standing in the 2014 European Elections. However, suppose a new political entity was set up for these elections and their only policy was to demand a referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union.
How likely, if at all, would it be that you support this new, single issue entity in the 2014 European Elections only?
I would definitely vote for that option
16
16
14
13
23
14
12
18
14
11
8
17
24
15
18
6
19
18
16
15
I would probably vote for that option
17
25
12
19
22
12
18
18
17
12
14
20
20
16
19
18
17
18
18
14
TOTAL WOULD VOTE
33
41
26
32
45
26
30
36
31
23
22
37
44
31
37
24
36
36
34
29
I would probably not vote for that option
14
19
15
7
16
14
13
16
13
15
18
14
12
17
11
23
13
13
15
10
I would definitely not vote for that option
21
15
30
45
12
28
30
26
17
26
16
22
22
26
14
24
19
20
23
24
TOTAL WOULDN’T VOTE
35
34
45
52
28
42
43
42
30
41
34
36
34
43
25
47
32
33
38
34
Don’t know
31
26
29
16
27
32
27
22
39
37
44
27
22
26
38
28
32
31
29
38
All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc. Total sample size was 1,474 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 4th – 5th September 2012. The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).
I have commented:
Hi,
please can you supply a URL for the YouGov Poll with all its details – thanks.
Congratulations to you and your team for your latest petition and poll and for this new launch of your group as a mono issue party seeking votes on the primal issue of democracy and a demand for an IN / OUT referendum relative to EU membership which underpins every aspect of our lives and costs each of us £6,000 a year and a direct cost of £35,000 a minute every minute of the year!
Time to enforce The UN fundamental Human Right of ‘Self Determination’ and vote to Leave-The-EU.
Welcome to Katie Hopkins, George Hargreaves (Christian Party?), Martin Harvey (who used to pay Marta Andreasen’s salary for UKIP, until he was abused by Farage & saw through the cherade and Marta Andreasen’s lies, dishonesty & corruption no doubt!).
AND of course well done to the rest of Team Sinclaire incl. Josh O’Nions the campaign manager from the start.
Regards, Greg_L-W.
YOU can support the new organisation by promoting this web site so that others can get the details and also you can sign the petition at:
Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W)
. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
Relations between leader Nigel Farage and MEP Marta Andreasen have been strained for some time
T
Ukip-vs-EUkip 