Ukip-vs-EUkip

We aim to inform YOU & provide an archive re: Ukip to TRY to make it fit for purpose

Posts Tagged ‘Tory’

Has #Ukip Lost Its Most Valuable Asset In The Depature Of #Douglas_Carswell? …

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 26/03/2017

Do Visit Our New Website @

www.InfoWebSite.UK

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,

>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
Also: The Top Bar >PAGES<

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Has #Ukip Lost Its Most Valuable Asset In The Depature Of #Douglas_Carswell? …
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted by:
Greg Lance – Watkins
Greg_L-W

eMail: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

https://InfoWebSiteUK.wordpress.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~000a ukip-025 count.png~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

.

Hi,

with the defection to being an Independent MP it can clearly be shown that Ukip has lost its most valuable asset as it now has no voice at Westminster!

Further – can you think of a single solitary individual of stature or credibility, competence or integrity – they not only lack a leader of any credible standing, Paul Nuttall having been shown to be a liar, a fantasist who is both integrity and charisma bereft and like his predecessor Nigel Farage Paul Nuttall has yet again been resoundingly rejected for a role in Domestic Politics!

The manner in which Douglas Carswell joined the party was, as I explained at the time CLICK HERE, a very questionable process! It was widely believed at the time of Carswell’s defection from the Tories that the defection had much more to do with a temper tantrum, having failed, despite seeing himself to be very important, to be allocated a room in the main hotel, for the Tory conference.

Being cast into the wilderness of a mere annex was thought to be the reason he organised a rapid dinner date with Stuart Wheeler the professional gambler who made his money spread betting and subsequently lost much of it due to commercial ineptitude and poor investments, you will recall that at the time Wheeler was another defector from the Tories and Ukip’s only backer of any note, though he didn’t trust Ukip or its Farage manipulated NEC, with any of his money, insisting that as their backer he must also be in control of their finances as their Financial Director!

It is understood that at the dinner Wheeler offered Carswell the leadership of Ukip, conveniently overlooking the fact that Nigel Farage was leader. Wheeler and Carswell were of course not the only ones who realised that Nigel Farage, although seen as a great asset to the Leave-The-EU cause by his devotees he alienated far more people than he could consider supporters and with the low grade of appointees he permitted around him his leadership of the Leave-The-EU movement and the BreXit cause would do infinitely more harm than good.

Ego won the day and Carswell, who was on the verge of leaving the Tories, having had his ego severely bruised by being bannished to the annex succumbed to Wheeler’s massaging of his ego by promising him the leadership which was in fact not in Wheeler’s gift!

That Carswell has put the spin on his joining that claims he joined Ukip to make the party more electable than with Nigel Farage orchestrating the band is a proof of the value of hindsight:

though it is reasonable to point out that Douglas Carswell did not just add a new string to Farage’s bow but an entirely new instrument – plausibility and electability.

You will note from Douglas Carswell’s statement/appologia that he makes some very valid points but there is more than a hint, in his self justification, that he has jumped before he was pushed and reading the vitriolic comments of Ukip’s now ex backer, who has left the party, Arron Banks and the needless vindictiveness of Nigel Farage, who is no longer leader of Ukip on the domestic front, Carswell was clearly right to leave before it became apparent he was dumped – in the true flavour of democratic behaviour that is well founded in EU style politics, where Ukip has honed its skills of treachery and back stabbing.

Ukip has always been a party of dubious morality and a tendency to fight and squabble like ferrets in a sack!

You will note from the other articles that I have posted from Douglas Carswell’s web site that he has voiced a number of sound concepts put forward in a reasoned and electable manner that is very out of keeping with the self aggrandising and sneering denigration style of most Ukip web sites, I trust you find this insight of the practices of Ukip and its style of some help in your decision making for the future as it becomes ever more obvious that Ukip’s role is now over.

Clearly Ukip has no role in the future BreXit negotiations as it is clear from their efforts and comments to date that they have little or no understanding of tyhe complexities of international law, the WTO, CODEX, WHO, UN, OPEC and the like. Ukip can not even seem to understand, let alone agree, as to whether they seek the votes of the left wing so called socialists, the center left of the hopelessly lost Libdems or the right of center Tory and capatalist supporters of free trade and international competition.

Further: Ukip would seem to be bereft of a funding policy with Nigel Farage in control of the EFDD Group funding the unlikely scenario of a Ukip MEP putting his hand in his pocket for the benefit of the party and no clear backer of stature it would seem t6hey are likely to be forced to return to the ‘caroussel’ methodology as they lurch along, as they did prior to Stuart Wheeler’s intervention and Arron Banks’ control.

At this moment I see little hope for Ukip, which is on the verge of insolvency, if not bankruptcy, near leaderless, in any real terms, when you consider the implausibility of Paul Nuttall’s claims and his recent abject failure when presented to the public in a by election on the most winnable occasion in Ukip’s entire history!

Consider Douglas Carswell’s statement and other suggestions and then consider which of Ukip’s MEPs have ever been able to string together as plausible or electable a role particularly since Nikki Sinclaire left the party to set up the petition which forced the debate in the House of Commons that gave rise to the promise of a Referendum in tyhe Tory Manifesto that led to the demise of the LibDems and fractured sqabbling in what was the Labour Party, which is so clearly torn in half and likely to be a political irrelevance organising fatuous anti democratic marches and counter productive demonstrations for at least a decade – particularly if it tries to remain as one party!

Job done – thank UKIP!

It has been an extraordinary achievement. UKIP, my party, which was founded in 1993 in order to get Britain out of the European Union, has now achieved what we were established to do.

On Wednesday, the Prime Minister is going to trigger Article 50, beginning the formal process of withdrawing our country from the EU. By April 2019, Britain will no longer be a member of the EU. After twenty-four years, we have done it. Brexit is in good hands.

UKIP might not have managed to win many seats in Parliament, but in a way we are the most successful political party in Britain ever. We have achieved what we were established to do – and in doing so we have changed the course of our country’s history for the better. Make no mistake; we would not be leaving the EU if it was not for UKIP – and for those remarkable people who founded, supported and sustained our party over that period.

Our party has prevailed thanks to the heroic efforts of UKIP party members and supporters. You ensured we got a referendum. With your street stalls and leafleting, you helped Vote Leave win the referendum. You should all be given medals for what you helped make happen – and face the future with optimism.

Like many of you, I switched to UKIP because I desperately wanted us to leave the EU. Now we can be certain that that is going to happen, I have decided that I will be leaving UKIP.

I will not be switching parties, nor crossing the floor to the Conservatives, so do not need to call a by election, as I did when switching from the Conservatives to UKIP. I will simply be the Member of Parliament for Clacton, sitting as an independent.

I will leave UKIP amicably, cheerfully and in the knowledge that we won.

At the hundreds of meetings and action days I have attended as a UKIP activist across the country since I joined in August 2014, I have met some truly remarkable people. You are heroes! Thank you and well done. I wish you all well.

When first elected to represent Clacton in 2005, I promised to do all I could to help ensure that Britain left the EU. To the consternation of my then party whips (some of who, I’m delighted to see, are now ministers helping make Brexit happen), I made my intentions on that front plain in my maiden speech. Job done.

I will be putting all of my effort into tackling some of the local problems affecting the NHS in our part of Essex, including GP shortages and the threat to our local Minor Injuries Unit. In that spirit, I called a Westminster Hall debate last week about the future of primary care in our part of Essex. Local comes first.

Cheer up! The days when small elites can try to arrange human social and economic affairs by grand design are coming to an end. Change is coming – Brexit is just the beginning.

24 MAR 2017
Secrecy in family courts must stop
New research on the family courts documents that, despite transparency guidance, only a tiny minority of proceedings are published. That’s deeply concerning – because secrecy promotes injustice.
Sadly, children do sometimes need to be taken into care. Most of the time, I’m sure, family courts make the right call.
However, some families are broken up unnecessarily. In 2008, Camilla Cavendish wrote a number of articles for The Times, documenting serious mistakes by social services. In several cases, expert witnesses gave testimony without ever having met the families involved.
The problem is that we don’t know how widespread these errors are, because the courts sit in secret. Adoption order proceedings are closed to the public and the press, and rarely published. Moreover, the identities of expert witnesses are protected. Secrecy allows injustice to be covered up.
It has long been recognised – by both ministers and judges – that more transparency is required. Yet efforts to increase it have fallen short.
Sir James Munby’s transparency guidance, for example, left the decision as to whether to publish to judges’ discretion. The new research by academics at Cardiff University reveals that very few judges have opted to do so – as a paper published by the UKIP PRU predicted.
The system needs much bolder reform. In our paper, we called for the publication of judgments to be mandatory, greater media access to both proceedings and case documents, and expert witnesses to be identified.
We also advocated greater use of Special Guardianship Orders, so that, if children do have to be taken from their families, they are placed at least temporarily with grandparents or other relatives, rather than total strangers.
Transparency helps ensure justice. It shouldn’t be resisted.
22 MAR 2017

Monetary policy is hurting productivity

 

Andy Haldane, the Bank of England’s chief economist, has admitted that ultra-loose monetary policy is a drag on productivity. So why won’t the Bank change course?

Productivity is the key to prosperity. Increased wealth comes from producing more using less effort, time, and resources. If productivity stagnates – as it has in the UK – prosperity will follow suit.

One of the drivers of low productivity growth is cheap credit. Inefficient companies that would otherwise have failed, and replaced by better competitors, have been sustained by artificially low borrowing costs.

Haldane’s case for record-low interest rates is that they prevented mass unemployment. Perpetuating zombie companies was worth it, he claims, to safeguard jobs.

That argument had some force in the immediate aftermath of the financial crisis. Less so nearly a decade later. Keeping interest rates at record lows indefinitely means making low productivity growth the norm, while at the same time creating the conditions for another job-destroying financial crisis.

Cheap money is not the only reason for poor productivity. Another, which Haldane neglected to mention, is corporate welfare. Tax credits incentivise employers to use cheap (often imported) labour, rather than invest in new technology – as UKIP’s Economy Spokesman, Mark Reckless, explains in a recent paper.

But the economic effects of artificially manipulating the price of capital shouldn’t be underestimated. Experience has shown that official price controls create either gluts or shortages. Market prices always allocate resources better.

Capital is no different. Lower productivity is one of many dangerous imbalances caused by ultra-loose monetary policy. They need to be corrected, not excused.

21 MAR 2017

Give voters the right to sack MPs

 

Like so much of what the House of Commons does these days, yesterday’s debate on MPs double-jobbing was mostly virtue signalling. That’s because MPs don’t like the real solution: recall elections.

In the United States, representatives can be recalled by their electorate. If enough local people sign a petition, they trigger a by-election. Voters then decide whether or not to renew their representative’s mandate at the ballot box.

We could have had the same system here. In 2014, a Recall of MPs Bill was announced in the Queen’s Speech.

But the title was misleading. Under the final legislation, voters can only trigger a by-election if a committee of grandees – or a court of law – has first found an MP guilty of wrongdoing. Rather than put voters in charge, the Bill let MPs act as a self-serving cartel.

Indeed, the government made sure Zac Goldsmith’s amendments to the Bill – which would have led to a real right of recall – were rejected.

Now we see why. Would the former Chancellor would have taken on so many roles outside Parliament if a recall election in Tatton were a possibility?

The debate about MPs taking jobs outside Westminster in any case misses the point. The most common form of double-jobbing is the appointment of MPs as ministers. Voters should have a say on that too.

Until a century ago, they did. Prior to the Re-Election of Ministers Acts (1919 & 1926), MPs had to face ministerial by-elections to join the Cabinet. They could only become ministers with their constituents’ consent.

Consent wasn’t always given. Between 1895 and 1926, there were 127 ministerial by-elections. On eight occasions, the ministers-designate lost.

The way to keep MPs in check isn’t to empower a toothless regulator. It’s to let their constituents hold them to account.

20 MAR 2017

Politicians and press have become indistinguishable

 

George Osborne’s appointment as Evening Standard editor says a lot about the state of the press. It ought to be perverse for a politician to be a journalist. But, when many so-called journalists do little more than push a political agenda, what’s the difference?

The idea of journalists as brave, independent scrutineers of politics may be appealing, but it’s not accurate. The relationship between the Fourth Estate and the political class is actually far too cosy.

Because politicians trade access for positive coverage, many journalists end up going native. Instead of exposing the governing elite, they act as its cheerleaders.

“That’s nothing new,” you might think. “Newspapers have always had a clear bias.”

Of course, there has always been an editorial point of view. The difference now is that there is little but opinion. Subjective analysis now masquerades as news.

During the referendum campaign, for example, it was striking how both print and broadcast media reported George Osborne’s Project Fear narrative as objective fact. No matter that none of it has turned out to be true.

Pundits frequently make out that established media are losing market share because consumers are now more interested in fake news than truth. The people, we’re told, are at fault.

The reality is the opposite. People are losing faith in established media because they see through the false pretence to objectivity. There’s a market for truth which the press is failing to deliver. Rather than cater to the public, pundits have joined the oligarchy.

Osborne will no doubt use his perch at the Standard to push the same spin he did as Chancellor. Far from being unqualified, he’s taking up an all too familiar role. That’s the problem.

17 MAR 2017

The Bank of England should follow the Fed’s lead

 

Ultra-loose monetary policy is one of the biggest risks to the global economy. Belatedly, the Federal Reserve raised interest rates this week. The Bank of England should follow suit.

There is no justification for record low interest rates. They were supposed to be temporary measure, in the wake of the financial crisis. Instead, they have become permanent. Indeed, the Bank cut them even further last August.

The consequences of artificially cheap credit are disastrous. It encourages consumers to borrow too much, banks to take excessive risks, and companies to buy back shares rather than invest in improving productivity.

Moreover, it transfers wealth from the asset poor to the asset rich. It is stoking a housing bubble that is preventing a generation from buying their own homes. 

Central banks are reluctant to raise interests because they fear the only thing keeping the global economy afloat is consumer borrowing and spending. Yet they must know that is an unsustainable model.

Eventually, borrowers will default, and contagion will spread to the entire system – just as it did a decade ago. Compounding the problem with more debt will only make the ultimate correction all the more painful. (For more on this, see my paper After Osbrown.)

Yesterday, Kristin Forbes, one of the nine members of the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee, dissented from the majority decision to leave rates unchanged, and voted to raise them. Let’s hope she persuades the rest of her colleagues next month.

16 MAR 2017

Forcing U-turns is Parliament’s job

 

Pundits see the government’s decision to scrap its planned rise in NI contributions for the self-employed as the Chancellor’s failure. Perhaps it should just be seen as Parliament doing its job.

Politicos have become so used to budgets being nodded through by MPs that they have come to believe Parliament is supposed to work like this. But it’s not.

Prior to the 1930s, backbench MPs could table amendments to the budget resolutions. The national government changed the rules to prevent it. Since then, Parliament has tended just to rubber stamp hundreds of billions of pounds’ worth of spending and taxation.

Yet opposition from MPs has now forced a volte face on the centrepiece of the budget after only a week. Perhaps Parliament isn’t quite so powerless after all.

It will be interesting to see how the Chancellor now replaces the ditched measures.

In autumn 2015, George Osborne backtracked over tax-credit reductions without replacing them with alternative cuts. Instead, he conjured up an extra £27 billion from nowhere – based on conveniently revised borrowing projections. In effect, he simply borrowed more money.

By contrast, Hammond has hinted at a broader rethink of the treatment of the self-employed in the tax system – so as to achieve the same ends by different means. That suggests self-employed people shouldn’t celebrate just yet. Alternative tax rises may be coming in the autumn.

That’s the wrong approach. Rather than tax – or borrow – more, government needs to spend less.

Parliament has demonstrated that cross-party opposition can block tax rises. Now we need cross-party support for spending cuts.

15 MAR 2017

We need a Bloggers Freedom Bill

 

Five years ago, I crowdsourced a Private Members’ Bill on Guido Fawkes. From five options, the people picked a Bill to repeal the European Communities Act. How prescient they were. Now I’d like to revive another of my suggestions: a Bloggers Freedom Bill.

Britain’s libel laws are out of date. They were developed at a time when very few people published anything. Those who did were affiliated to large organisations with the financial resources to defend themselves in court.

Yet they are now applied in a world where millions of individuals – without financial backing – publish constantly, both online and on social media.

The law needs to be updated for the digital age.

People do need protection from libel, and their intellectual property should be safeguarded. But, at the same time, those posting on social media should have some security against being sued.

The Bloggers Freedom Bill I suggested would be a compromise. It would give bloggers and tweeters a 48-hour period of grace – to remove content – before legal action could be taken.

The status quo skews the law in the interests of big media, rich claimants, and lawyers. It restricts the democratisation of media made possible by the digital revolution.

Let’s make libel law reflect today’s reality – and the public interest.

14 MAR 2017

WTO terms are an asset – not a foe

 

The UK should be able to strike a free-trade agreement with the EU. It is in our mutual interests to do so. However, if we cannot reach a good deal, the World Trade Organisation helps us ensure workable terms of trade even if we walk away.

Some MPs seem to think that trading under WTO terms is tantamount to isolation or protectionism. It appears to escape their notice that the precise purpose of the WTO is to facilitate trade.

Under the most-favoured-nation principle, the EU would not be able to discriminate against UK goods with extortionate tariffs even if it wanted to.

As to non-tariff barriers, remember all British companies already comply with single-market regulations and standards by default – unlike those of any other country that trades with the EU on WTO terms.

Imports, meanwhile, would be entirely at our discretion. We could not only set tariffs as low as we want, but also unilaterally allow any product manufactured to EU standards to be sold here – thereby keeping the compliance costs passed on to UK consumers as low as possible.

Those MPs who claim any deal with the EU is better than no deal are being disingenuous about what a bad deal would mean.

An agreement that failed to restore our sovereignty, or our control over our borders and fishing waters, or our freedom to determine our own regulatory environment, or our ability to sign free-trade deals with other – growing – economies beyond Europe is an agreement we cannot accept. Acquiescence would be not only counter to our economic interest, but anti-democratic.

Those who want the government to rule out trading with the EU on WTO terms are, in effect, attempting to rule out Brexit. They are seeking to give the EU sole discretion over our terms of exit – which would mean never leaving.

But Brexit is happening. Parliament has – finally – voted for it. There is every reason to believe we will sign mutually beneficial trading deal with the EU. Yet, whatever the outcome of negotiations, we must all now adapt to a new reality.

13 MAR 2017

Brexit begins

 

264 days since the referendum, Article 50 could be triggered this week. Finally, Brexit is becoming a reality.

Assuming the House of Commons votes down the Lords’ amendments to the Article 50 Bill today, the Lords will be unlikely to obstruct the Bill again. The PM could then trigger Article 50 as soon as tomorrow morning.

Of course, there will be other big Parliamentary votes on the Brexit process – both on the final deal and on the Great Repeal Bill.

But the nature of the debate will now change. There will be no going back.

Ideally, from now on, Parliament would play a constructive – rather than obstructive – role. We can now have substantive discussions about vast areas of policy that were delegated to the EU.

Taking back control shouldn’t be thought of as the end of the process, but the beginning. Power should be spread outwards and downwards: not just from Brussels to Westminster, but from Westminster to local communities, and ultimately to individuals.

But, as the budget debate testifies, the instincts of both the government and the opposition are fundamentally statist. There is a gap in the political marketplace for a localist, classically liberal domestic agenda.

I set out some ideas for what that agenda could look like in my new book, Rebel – published April 6th. No time to lose.

See older posts (3075 more)

See all posts (3085)

Archive

2012
2011
2010
2009
2008

Printed by Douglas Carswell of 61 Station Road, Clacton-on-Sea, Essex

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Regards,
Greg_L-W.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins
tel: 44 (0)1594 – 528 337
Calls from ‘Number Withheld’ phones Are Blocked

All unanswered messages are recorded.
Leave your name & a UK land line number & I will return your call.

‘e’Mail Address: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

www.InfoWebSite.UK

DO MAKE USE of LINKS,
>SEARCH<
&
>Side Bars<
&
The Top Bar >PAGES<

Also:

ABOUT ME, Details & Links: CLICK HERE
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Summary & archive, facts & comments on Ukip: http://Ukip-vs-EUkip.com
General ‘Stuff’: http://GL-W.com
Leave-The-EU Referendum & BreXit Process CLICK HERE
Documents, Essays & Treaties: CLICK HERE
The Hamlet of Stroat: CLICK HERE
Data & The Study of a Wind Turbine Application: CLICK HERE
Health Blog.: CLICK HERE
Chepstow Chat: CLICK HERE
Christopher Story: CLICK HERE
Des Watkins DFC; CdeG: CLICK HERE/
Hollie Greig etc.: CLICK HERE
Psycheocracy: CLICK HERE
The McCann Case: CLICK HERE
The Speculative Society of Edinburgh: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Dunblane: CLICK HERE
Stolen Kids, Bloggers: CLICK HERE
Views I respect & almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
A Concept of Governance Worthy of Developement: CLICK HERE

Skype: GregL-W

TWITTER: @Greg_LW

Stolen Kids Blogs with links:
http://StolenKids-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Oyster with links:
http://StolenOyster-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Trust with links:
http://StolenTrust-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
Stolen Childhood with links:
http://StolenChildhood-Bloggers.Blogspot.com
NB:
  1. I NEVER post anonymously on the internet
  2. ALL MY BLOGS & WEB SITES are clearly sourced to me
  3. I do NOT use an obfuscated eMail address to hide behind
  4. I do NOT use or bother reading FaceBook
  5. I DO have a Voice Mail Message System
  6. I ONLY GUARANTEE to answer identifiable eMails
  7. I ONLY GUARANTEE to phone back identifiable UK Land Line Messages
  8. I do NOT accept phone calls from witheld numbers
  9. I Regret due to BT in this area I have a rubbish Broadband connection
  10. I AM opposed to British membership of The EU
  11. I AM opposed to Welsh, Scottish or English Independence within an interdependent UK
  12. I am NOT a WARMIST
  13. I do NOT believe the IPCC Climate Propaganda re Anthropogenic Global Warming
  14. I AM strongly opposed to the subsidy or use of failed technologies eg. WIND TURBINES
  15. I AM IN FAVOUR of rapid research & development of NEW NUCLEAR technologies
  16. I see no evidence to trust POLITICIANS at any level or of any persuasion
  17. I do NOT believe in GODS singular or plural, Bronze Age or Modern
  18. I value the NHS as a HEALTH SERVICE NOT a Lifestyle support
  19. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial or GBH rape.
  20. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial, terrorist, mass or for pleasure murder.
  21. I believe in a DEATH PENALTY for serial gross child abuse including sexual.
  22. I do NOT trust or believe in armed police
  23. I do NOT believe in prolonging human life beyond reasonable expectation of sentient participatory intellectual existence
  24. I believe in EUTHENASIA under clearly defined & legal terms
  25. I try to make every effort to NOT infringe copyrights in any commercial way & make all corrections of fact brought to my attention by an identifiable individual

Please Be Sure To
.Follow Greg_LW on Twitter.

Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs
To Spread The Facts World Wide
~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~

Posted in Hillsborough, Paul Nuttall, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

GUEST POST: Ten reasons why I won’t be joining UKIP

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 14/11/2014

GUEST POST: Ten reasons why I won’t be joining UKIP
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

GUEST POST:

Ten reasons why I won’t be joining UKIP from a very Tory perspective!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.

More and more often I’m asked if I will defect to UKIP. I can understand why. I’m no admirer of David Cameron’s zig-zagging leadership of the Conservative Party. I support leaving the EU. I resent the way George Osborne span last week’s extra £850 million payment to the Brussels bureaucracy as some sort of victory. I share UKIP’s opposition to Britain’s futile but expensive climate change policies. I’ve also tried to understand the motivations of UKIP’s voters rather than shout them down as racists.

All of my experience suggests that the vast majority of Kippers are patriotic, decent Britons who worry about the direction of the country and are often victims of very tough economic circumstances. I admire many of UKIP’s leading lights, notably Douglas Carswell, Patrick O’Flynn and Steven Woolfe. I feel philosophically and temperamentally closer to them than some prominent members of my own party – Matthew Parris or Ken Clarke, for example. But I’m not going to leave the Conservative Party.

Although there’s more in UKIP that I like than I dislike (it’s largely a party of the centre right after all) I want to fight for the Conservatives to again become Britain’s dominant party – rooted in the centre right, a broad church and committed to a one nation politics. I may feel closer to Douglas Carswell than Matthew Parris; to Patrick O’Flynn rather than to Ken Clarke but the bigger truth is that I’m much closer to Dan Hannan than to Nigel Farage, to Owen Paterson rather than Diane James or to Iain Duncan Smith than to Mark Reckless.

Here are ten quick reasons why I won’t be joining UKIP:

  1. UKIP is the EU’s best hope of avoiding a referendum. I agree with what Douglas Carswell once believed: “Only the Conservatives will guarantee and deliver an In /Out referendum. It will only happen if Cameron is Prime Minister”. If you vote Conservative you maximise your chance of David Cameron and pro-referendum Tory MPs staying in power. If you vote UKIP you might get Ed Miliband – as Nigel Farage now concedes.

  2. UKIP is not a friend of its poorest voters. UKIP is doing particularly well in more disadvantaged parts of Britain that haven’t done well during the global recession or indeed during the preceding years when less skilled work lost much of its market value. Its tax policies won’t benefit the lowest-paid workers, however. 85 per cent of the benefit of its policy to increase the starting rate of income tax will go to the top half of earners. This is also true of the Tory and LibDem pledge but I thought UKIP was supposed to be different? Moreover UKIP would take the poor backwards on some key fronts. Both Mark Reckless and Douglas Carswell have fought hard against Tory housebuilding plans that would reduce the cost of housing to first-time buyers. Many in the Tory Party are too NIMBYist but the problem in UKIP is even more serious – perhaps because its voters are so much older than any of the other parties?

  3. UKIP is divided. Forget for the moment the historic fallings out. I mean, for example, what UKIP’s founder Alan Sked thinks of Mr Farage. Or what Godfrey Bloom thinks. Or Marta Andreasen. I’m thinking about the future tensions. Mark Wallace has expertly highlighted the looming differences between Douglas Carswell and Nigel Farage. UKIP is in danger of making the People’s Front of Judea look coherent. They have one policy that unites them – leaving the EU. Not much else.

  4. UKIP is amateurish. If you vote UKIP you could end up with almost anything in the way of policy. At the Eastleigh by-election it was promising lots of increases in spending and lots of tax cuts. Even Ed Balls is better at sums. At its recent Doncaster conference its Treasury spokesman Patrick O’Flynn announced a tax on luxury goods only for it to be disowned by Nigel Farage 48 hours later. Mr Farage has a habit of disowning UKIP policies. He described his own party’s 2010 manifesto as “drivel”. He didn’t admit that to voters at the time. So much for straight-talking.

  5. UKIP is unfinished. I sat on a panel on the fringe of UKIP’s recent conference. It was remarkable to see two front bench spokespeople – Steven Woolfe and Patrick O’Flynn openly disagree about the desirability of a flat tax. UKIP started as a “non-racist, libertarian party” committed to leave the EU. It hardly talks about leaving the EU anymore. It increasingly focuses on immigration. It opposed gay marriage in order to reinforce its support among older voters. It’s currently more conservative than libertarian but soon may be more left-wing than conservative. In reaching out to Labour voters it has become anti-reformist on the NHS but, in a leftover from its earlier days, it still promises to cut tax for the rich. Contradictions don’t always matter in opposition. The Liberal Democrats who played left in the north and right in the south for twenty years were only found out in government but UKIP is not only an incoherent political force its ambitions to win in Labour as well as Tory backyards is resulting in even more and more incoherence. Join this moving vehicle at your own risk. Its destination is unknown.

  6. UKIP has no long-term economic plan. Ed Balls has his banker bonus tax. He’s spent it five or ten times, depending on whose list you trust. UKIP isn’t any more honest than the shadow chancellor. UKIP say it’ll pay for everything by leaving the EU or cutting aid to the poorest and hungriest people of the world. This would only pay for, perhaps, a quarter of Britain’s borrowings. UKIP has no plan to rebuild the northern economy, eliminate the deficit or reform welfare. It is not a party of tough choices but this is a time when very tough choices are necessary.

  7. UKIP is isolationist. I am proud to be part of a country that shoulders its global responsibilities. While I want Britain to leave the EU it’s because I don’t want to be shackled to an out-of-date project that is in serious global decline. Farage says he wants a globalist Britain, too. I’m not so sure. I’m proud of our partnership with America in punishing aggression. Proud of our armed forces. Proud of the humanitarian good that our aid budget does. Nigel Farage’s desire to slash the aid budget, his opposition to action against ISIS and his admiration for Vladimir Putin’s skills may strike a populist note but they’re not the actions of a great Britain. They deserve the Little England tag.

  8. UKIP is opportunistic. There are many people who oppose gay marriage for principled reasons. I personally support marriage equality but I respect the views of those who disagree. But why did Nigel Farage oppose gay marriage? Because the traditional family is important to him? If it was he would have a developed family policy. As Kathy Gyngell blogs, he hasn’t begun to.

  9. UKIP is undemocratic. Don’t take my word for it – read Roger Lord’s words. He was deselected as UKIP’s Clacton candidate without any internal procedure. It may have been an electorally understandable decision but it certainly wasn’t democratic. I wouldn’t want to be part of a party where my career or my party’s direction was in the hands of any one person.

  10. UKIP is pessimistic. Douglas Carswell’s open and optimistic speech after his Clacton victory was a model for what UKIP might yet become but it was not typical of the party. Speech after speech at UKIP’s Doncaster conference was a rant at the modern world. I know. I was there, sitting through it all. The speech by the party’s health spokesperson, Louise Bours, was so shouty I wanted earplugs by the end of it. And, of course, there are reasons for anger. The decline of home ownership, flat wages for millions, social immobility and the demographic changes that are producing such a misshaped state are grounds for concern but it’s all too negative. Even unBritish. There was even something uncivilised about Nigel Farage’s speech against Herman van Rompuy in the European Parliament. “You have the charisma of a damp rag and the appearance of a low grade bank clerk“? I want the can-do optimism of a Reagan or a Boris at the heart of politics. No nation can advance with pessimism in its fuel tank.

**********

A final thought.
An eleventh reason.

This particularly fractious time to be a Conservative won’t last. I feel – as many Tories do – that there is a cuckoo in the nest at present and he will be gone on either the day after the next election or a year or two afterwards. At some point in the not too distant future the party will have a leader more in tune with the mood of the Conservative voter and with the lower income, aspirational and patriotic voters that Margaret Thatcher and John Major successfully attracted. The unhappy chapter begun in December 2005 will close.

The Conservatives shouldn’t change their leader before the election, whatever happens in next Thursday’s Rochester and Strood by-election. It is not clear that there is any Tory in parliament who’d do a better job for the Conservative Party next May than David Cameron. Particularly because it is unlikely that a leadership election would be a coronation. It would probably be protracted and divisive. The Tories also have strong assets. The economy is growing. Jobs are being created. Crime is down. Welfare and schools are being reformed. Pensioners have been looked after. Only one party can deliver a referendum on Europe. These remain strong underpinnings of a re-election strategy. They’d not be enough against a strong Labour Party but they might be enough against a Labour Party led by Ed Miliband. He seemed to do enough yesterday to save his leadership.

Moreover, David Cameron is not a terrible conservative. He’s a little bit conservative in every respect. A little bit of a fiscal conservative. A little bit of a Eurosceptic. A little bit of a reformer. A little bit of a hawk on foreign policy. But, while such modest conservatism might have suited happier times, these are not happy times. The European Union of which we are already semi-detached members is failing economically and failing badly. Emerging markets, technological change and open borders are combining to depress the wages of the lowest-paid. Demographic change is distorting the budgets of ageing western electorates such that the British state now spends more than half of its budget on health, welfare and pensions. This is a time for boldness rather than for Cameronism.

Although I think he’s been a strategic amateur the Prime Minister is clearly a natural TV performer and super competent at many of the things a prime minister should be competent at – including at representing Britain at international gatherings and in Commons performances. I was very proud of his responses to the Hillsborough and Bloody Sunday reports. The trouble is that these qualities are less important than a common touch, consistency and skilled party management. The gatekeepers of Britain’s political culture put too much emphasis on the silky sophistication of a Cameron and not only don’t value the raw strategic consistency of a Tony Abbott and Stephen Harper or the folksy charm of a Ronald Reagan or John Key. Worse, they actually sneer at such qualities.

But change is coming. David Cameron may be gone within six months. If he wins the next election he’ll probably go by mid-term, perhaps sooner. Real change must then happen because, by its own objectives, Cameronism has failed. Failed to build Tory support in the north, in urban Britain or among ethnic minorities. Three key tasks will await Cameron’s successor, whoever he or she will be:

  • They will have to begin proper Tory modernisation. David Cameron was not wrong in 2005 to argue that the Tory Party needed to change. This, after all, is a party that last won a general election outright in 1992. But as polling by YouGov for ConservativeHome has demonstrated, Team Cameron undertook the wrong kind of modernisation. The belief was that the Tories were too right-wing (hence the emphasis on not talking about Europe, immigration and crime). The problem was that the party was too biased towards the already wealthy (a reputation that the party tried to tackle with its commitment to the NHS but only reinforced by, among other things, adopting environmental policies that increased fuel bills and also by denying poorer, bright kids the opportunity of a grammar school education). Even now the Tory leadership does not understand the extent of its problem. George Osborne’s decision at the Birmingham Party Conference to announce a freeze on benefits for the lowest paid without asking any other better-off sections of society to make any sacrifices was politically deaf to the party’s greatest challenge. The next Tory leader will only break into Scotland, northern England, the great cities and amongst ethnic minority populations if it offers the two halves of the great Winston Churchill vision: ladders of opportunity so people of every background can climb high and also, often forgotten by Conservatives, the finest social ambulance service in the world, so that no person ever falls too far.

  • They will have to reknit the centre right, Eurosceptic coalition. It’s not yet clear how easy or hard that will be. With six or more MPs in parliament and a large number of second-placed results UKIP might soon be a force to be reckoned with. But if UKIP falls short and if Nigel Farage walks away from his party’s leadership all the internal inconsistencies within UKIP might bubble over. However hard it is some sort of post-election reconciliation will be necessary. That reconciliation might be with UKIP voters rather than with its hierarchy but reconciliation will be necessary – at least as long as Britain’s first-past-the-post system continues.

  • They will have to decentralise the party. We must never get into a position ever again where the Tory Party is run by such a small, very wealthy and not particularly effective clique. There have been members of David Cameron’s circle who have been outstanding. Lord Feldman springs to mind. He has transformed the Conservative Party’s finances. Overall, however, it couldn’t win a majority against Brown, has presided over the biggest ever split on the centre right of British politics and its only hope of winning the next election is the fact that Labour replaced Gordon Brown with someone even less electable. There are divisions across the Right in all parts of the world but the lack of internal democracy has forced Tory divisions into the open and many natural Tories out of the party. The split on the American Right has been contained within the Republican Party by the US system of primary elections. This has meant, on occasions, some very odd candidates have been nominated by the GOP for the Senate in particular. It has been messy but the party has stayed together – and triumphed in last week’s mid-terms. Robust systems of internal democracy might have meant certain policies that I, personally, support – including equal marriage and the 0.7 per cent aid target – might have been blocked. I would have argued for them but party members and MPs deserve to be consulted more often than at a once-in-a-decade leadership election. Every MP in the next parliament should have a job (running the UK equivalents of Battleground Texas, for example (of which more on another occasion)). There should be an elected Tory board and Chairman with the responsibility to think about the long-term health of the Tory Party. The whole party apparatus should not be obsessed with helping the current leader survive beyond the annual electoral cycle. Fundamental change is needed in party organisation if it is to think long-term about rebuilding in the northern cities, changing the profile of party candidates and – the previous theme – remoralising the Tory brand.

UKIP is partly the product of both lousy party management and strategy by the current Tory leadership. Its best members can teach the Conservative Party a few things but it is not the answer to Britain’s key challenges. The Conservatives might just limp over the finishing line at the next election under David Cameron’s leadership but fundamental change is still needed if the party is to win an election and, most importantly, deserve to win it.

To view the original opf this article CLICK HERE
Although I largely agree with the sentiment I do feel that the author has wildly over stated the abilities and ethics of his Ukip protagonists, but then again he is the blog owner who censors his comments section to erradicater numerous fundamental facts about Ukip which he chooses to believe might damage them!
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

EU Budget Suppliment Debacle Deepens!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/10/2014

 EU Budget Suppliment Debacle Deepens!
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

EU Budget Suppliment Debacle Deepens! Leaving all in some confusion yet showing just how emasculated these United Kingdoms are in democratic terms as vassals of the EU.

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
further to my posting at CLICK HERE it would seem that David Cameron is not the only one who is poorly briefed or telling lies! it does look as if The EU Commission themselves are muddled by the complexity of their own rules!
A careful read of this Press Release below, would SEEM to contradict al else that has been published and earlier understanding by both the British Government (aka David Cameron) and The EU itself – not to mention myself who had found myself going down exactly the same line as the professional blogger and political researcher Dr. Richard North!
Further with care in your reading of the Press Release it would SEEM to contradict itself within its own text!
European Commission
MEMO

Brussels, 24 October 2014

REVISION OF MEMBER STATES’ GNI CONTRIBUTION – Q&A

1. Who decides to increase Member states’ GNI contribution to the EU budget and why?

The different types of own resources of the EU budget and the method for calculating them are set out in a Council Decision on own resources and its implementing regulation. Thus the rules relating to the calculation of Member states’ contribution based on their respective Gross National Income are established in the own resources legislation.

In May of each year the Commission and representatives of each Member state meet to establish the estimated GNI of every member state for the year to come. That specific source of income for the EU budget is then adopted in agreement with the Member states.

Each autumn, the Commission and representatives of each Member state meet a second time, this time to check whether there are differences between the original GNI estimates and the “real” GNI for the previous year, and whether there any further adjustment to older GNI data, still based on the figures provided by each Member state.

Member states’ individual GNI contribution is then adjusted upwards or downwards to compensate for the adjustments. This is a purely mathematical, technical process. So much so, that member states agreed that the Commission can implement the adjusted figures by 1 December every year without any need to submit a proposal to the Council and/or to the European Parliament.

2. Does this year’s technical adjustment take into account the new method to calculate member states’ GDP (ESA 2010)?

No. This new method to calculate member states’ GDP will have no impact on their GNI contribution to the EU budget until the new own resources decision comes into effect, which is probably 2016.

3. Why does this year’s technical adjustment see such big increases of contributions to the EU budget for some member states?

This year’s adjustment includes GNI re-calculation dating back to 2002 for most member states and to 1995 for one, as there were a number of unresolved issues that had accumulated over the last years. The decision to resolve these historic issues now results from a joint effort of member states in cooperation with Eurostat. With all these issues now cleared, future such corrections will again be rather minor, as they were in recent years.

Some member states have consistently reported too low values for their GNI over the last years, this obviously explain the size of some adjustments upwards.

4. Why has the Commission decided to act just now?

As explained earlier, the adjusted GNI contributions must come into force by 1 December at the latest. However, the earlier in the year you calculate the real GNI for that given year the less accurate you are. The Commission must therefore find a compromise between announcing the revised GNI figures as late as possible in order to be as accurate as possible, and as early as possible in order to give member states enough time to adapt to the new figures. This year, member States were informed of the budgetary impact of the new data on 17 October.

5. Do those adjustments always increase member states’ GNI contributions?

Not at all; it mostly depends on member states themselves as the basis for such revision is the figures provided by the member states. If your recorded GNI for any given year is lower than what was estimated at the beginning of the year, your GNI contribution will go down.

The original of this Press Release fom the EU Commission can be seen at:
The one thing of which we can all be certain is that the central bureaucracy has NOT, as some would like you to believe, carried out some gratuitous act of enbittered bullying as the present Commission leaves office, in order to vivtimise these United Kingdoms and slap down David Camerons efforts to ‘re-negotiate’ and hold an IN / OUT Referendum when re-elected after May 2015, as promised.
What we can be certain of is the unpalatable, for David Cameron and part of the Tory party, is that unilateral re-negotiation just is not on the cards. EU Treaty after EU Treaty to which the British Government has freely, if duplicitously much of the time, signed up clearly states that there is no possibility of an substantial or substantive re-negotiation and that ALL decisions must be on the basis of either QMV or unanimous vote of the EU’s vassal states!
This of course places David Cameron and his Government when re-elected, assuming that Ukip has not garnered enough votes to destroy Britain by so consequentially damaging the Tories as to place the utterly incompetent, economic idiots and extremist Fabians etc., in the Labour party, in a controlling position!
The problem for David Cameron will be that he will be honour bound to actively campaign, with his Government for Britain to leaver the EU, which is counter to his aims to subjugate Britain yet further to the globalist control of the arcane and outdated EU, which merely acts as obfuscation and a rubber stamp for the issuance of International law by the likes of UN, CODEX, WTO, IMF, WHO and the like. He will have proved that Britain’s 8% influence and voting control of our destiny, whilst still in the EU, is of absolutely no material consequence!
You will find the article below by Richard goes into further detail regarding the ‘Budget Confusion’  first here is the article in The Telegraph which Richard wrote with Tim Ross:

George Osborne under pressure over EU budget row

European Union officials warned Britain in January that new bills were coming, and produced figures showing that the UK was likely to have to pay higher fees this autumn

David Cameron in Brussels for the European Council. Photo: REX
 

The European Union warned Britain months ago that it was facing a massive increase in its EU membership fee, according to documents seen by The Telegraph.

A furious David Cameron vowed on Friday that he would not pay an “appalling” and unexpected demand for an extra £1.7 billion in British contributions to the EU budget by the December 1 deadline.

However, The Telegraph can disclose that EU officials warned member states in January that new bills were coming, and produced figures showing that Britain was likely to have to pay higher fees this autumn.

The disclosure cast doubt on Mr Cameron’s claims that he had been ambushed out of the blue by the demand for more money on the eve of the Brussels summit on Thursday.

The development will intensify pressure on the Prime Minister and George Osborne, the Chancellor, over why Britain was apparently so unprepared for the extra surcharge.

In other developments as the row grew:

:: Treasury ministers are to be hauled before MPs this week to explain why Mr Cameron was not informed of the impending£1.7 billion charge from the European Union;

:: Mr Osborne is preparing to launch talks with other European finance ministers, ahead of a meeting on November 7 at which the dispute is expected to be discussed. The Chancellor will raise Britain’s concerns with the German Finance Minister, Wolfgang Schaeuble, and others, when they meet in Berlin this week at a global forum on tax transparency;

:: Senior Treasury officials are meeting this weekend, and will be speaking to their counterparts in the Netherlands, Italy, and Greece to build an alliance of countries to fight the extra demands for money.

:: Labour’s Treasury spokesman, Chris Leslie, wrote to Mr Osborne demanding that the Chancellor set out what he knew, when about the demand for more money. Mr Leslie told Mr Osborne he had “serious questions to answer”about how long the government had known about the potential for Britain to be hit with such a massive surcharge;

:: A senior Member of the European Parliament warned that Mr Cameron would have to pay the £1.7 billion, saying the confusion was “an entirely British affair” and that the rest of Europe “expects” the UK to pay up;

:: It emerged that Britain would face EU fines worth more than £1.3 million a day for every day the country refuses to pay the extra bill.

The call for the extra cash, which followed a review of member states’ economic performance since 1995, was described by Mr Cameron as “completely unacceptable”.

The detailed demand for £1.7 billion was first sent to EU member state governments on October 17, several days before the information reached the Chancellor.

The Chancellor has said he learnt about the bill “earlier this week”, but it appeared to catch the Prime Minister off guard.

On Saturday, Sir Bill Cash, chair of the Commons European scrutiny select committee, announced that ministers from the Treasury would be summoned to explain the apparent lack of action over the bill which left Mr Cameron exposed at the summit.

Sir Bill said: “I’m calling in Treasury ministers next week to my committee so that we can go through how this happened in addition to what they have to say about the way in which they intend to handle it from now on.”

“So we’ll have a proper examination which will obviously include looking at the system itself which I’ve already described as crazy.”

The extra £1.7billion bill is a result of changes in the way national accounts are calculated across the world, which have had the effect of increasing Britain’s GDP by more than the European average. This meant Britain’s required contribution to the overall EU budget would also increase by more than the EU average.

Different EU member states make different contributions to the EU budget, depending on their national incomes.

On January 16, European statisticians said the EU-wide average increase resulting from the change in the way national accounts are calculated was a rise of 2.4 per cent in GDP. For Britain, the projected figure was higher, between 3 per cent and 4 per cent.

A prominent MEP warned Mr Cameron yesterday that Europe “expects” Britain to pay the surcharge by the December 1 deadline.

“It appears the Prime Minister was surprised by this in Brussels,” said Alexander Graf Lambsdorff, vice-president of the European Parliament.

“And that I can understand, because a bill of €2bn, £1.7bn, is significant enough to be informed about before you go to a summit and then are confronted with it in a surprising way. But that is an entirely British affair. The rest of Europe expects you to pay and that’s that.”

On Saturday, The Telegraph reported that Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, had told Mr Cameron he should have anticipated the European Union’s demand.

According to a diplomatic record of talks between European leaders seen by the paper, the German Chancellor told the Prime Minister the call “did not come out of the blue”.

“I understand that it is difficult to come up with €2 billion [£1.7billion] David, but this should have been expected,” Ms Merkel said.

The European Commission president, Jean Claude Juncker, also told Mr Cameron to “show some political courage” over the call.

 The article can be found at CLICK HERE
& now for Richard North’s latest take on the issue:

Monday 27 October 2014

000a Telegraph-026 Pressure.jpg

Something of the story behind the story on Mr Cameron’s £1.7bn began to emerge in the Sunday Telegraph yesterday, with lead writer Tim Ross kindly adding my by-line to the copy. The Mail on Sunday, however, went for a fictional version of events, going for Mr Gove’s incredible theory that the Barroso personally dumped a £1.7 bill on the UK as an act of revenge.

The Financial Times though, is coming up with a completely different version of events. The £1.7bn figure, it tells us, is a one-off payment which accounts for less than 0.1 percent of UK GNI, representing a top-up to UK contributions covering 11 years. Thus, the paper says, Britain is being asked to pay a “modest” adjustment of an extra £150m a year over the period, a sum that would barely deserve a footnote in the UK’s annual accounts.

Now, the Mail is saying much the same thing, that “the European Commission issued the demand to the UK after using rules dating back to 1995 and finding Britain’s economy has grown faster than expected, so must pay a greater share to Brussels”.

This, one assumes, is based on the Commission Q&A on the revision of Member States’s GNI, which I only saw last night. Contradicting completely my report on the application of ESA 2010, it states that this year’s technical adjustment does NOT take into account the new method of calculating member states’ GNIs. This new method, it says, will have no impact on their GNI contributions to the EU budget until the new own resources decision comes into effect, which is probably 2016.

To the question of why this year’s technical adjustment sees such big increases of contributions to the EU budget for some member states, the Commission tells us that this year’s adjustment includes GNI re-calculation dating back to 2002 for most member states and to 1995 for one.

There were, we are told, a number of unresolved issues that had accumulated over the last years. The decision to resolve these historic issues now results from a joint effort of member states in cooperation with Eurostat. With all these issues now cleared, future such corrections will again be rather minor, as they were in recent years. This seems to be borne out by sight of an (undated) information note to member states, which sets out the sums involved, on which much of the media publicity has been based.

As to the legal authority to apply retrospective adjustments, the Commission cites Council Regulation No 1150/2000 of 22 May 2000 implementing Decision 94/728/EC on the system of the Communities’ own resources. It would seem that Article 10(8) applies, referring to Article 3(2) of Directive 89/130/EEC on the harmonization of the compilation of gross national product at market prices.

There is nevertheless something very odd about the Commission Q&A, because it cites Council Decision 2007/436/EC on the system of the European Communities’ own resources, as being the basis for calculating the Members’ contributions. Yet, as we see here, that Decision has been repealed and replaced by Council Decision 2014/335/EU on the system of own resources of the European Union. It takes effect from 1 January of this year.

The crucial thing about this updated Decsion is that it tells us that Member States’ GNIs “shall mean an annual GNI at market price, as provided by the Commission in application of Regulation (EU) No 549/2013 (ESA 2010)” – thereby installing the new European System of Accounts, except that pro temp contributions were to be based on ESA 95 because ESA 2010 had not been available at the time of the adoption of this Decision.

But, the Decision went on, “the contributions should be adapted as soon as all Member States have transmitted their data on the basis of ESA 2010”. “In the event that there are any amendments to ESA 2010 which entail a significant change in the level of GNI”, it then said, “the ceilings for own resources and for commitment appropriations should be adapted again”.

On this basis, it would appear that the Commission is wrong in claiming that ESA 2010 does not apply. Its own legislation says it does, and unless there is an unknown factor here, the new standard applies to the current figures and the adjustments.

Therefore, what I think has happened is that, guided by Directive 89/130/EEC, the UK and other Member States have revised their GNIs retrospectively using ESA 2010, which has given rise to the adjustments recorded. But it must also be remembered that the procedure requires Member States to calculate their own GNIs, and send the results to the Commission. This is not something the Commission does for us – we do it for ourselves.

Thus, as far as the awareness and the advance notice goes, my previous report would seem to be accurate (unless or until we see further developments).  The UK was informed that changes were in progress. It is unlikely that Mr Cameron can claim that the Commissions was not entitled to the money it is claiming, as the sum is based on data provided by the UK – presumably calculated by the ONS – in accordance with well-established procedures.

Since the ESA 2010 changes have been flagged up continuously, the UK government – and therefore Mr Cameron – can have no justification for saying they didn’t know what was coming.

Seldom though have I met a more complex scenario – where the Commission also seems to be getting it wrong. Even Mr Barroso didn’t seem to know what was going on. And that may just provide a small window of opportunity for Mr Cameron. It the Commission itself is all at sea, he could claim that it is unfair to expect him to know better.

Of course, his “Rolls-Royce” civil service could have told him, except that Rolls-Royce cars is now owned by the Germans. That is perhaps why Mrs Merkel was in the know and Mr Cameron wasn’t.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

.
Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in David Cameron, EU Budget, EU Commission, EU Funding, Richard NORTH, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Has Cameron Created His Own & Farage’s Worst Nighmare?

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 12/07/2014

Has Cameron Created His Own & Farage’s Worst Nighmare?
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

Has David Cameron Created His Own & Nigel Farage’s Worst Nightmare, with both Owen Paterson & Liam Fox as big hitterts both now able and willing to speak out & tell the truth about The EU – actively campaigning to Leave_The_EU?

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.Hi,
neither Owen Paterson quoted extensively below nor Liam Fox who featured in today’s Times can be as easily dismissed as others when it comes to views on membership of the EU – as both are clearly experienced big hitters and there is no element to the publicity seeking clown about either of them.
All too readily others who have opposed membership of the EU can be dismissed as lightweights seeking attention or enrichment by representing a populist view and unlike others there is no element of reject nor failure about these two men, who have clearly thought the issues through and can measure the facts against actual experience in high office and not just as irrelevant EU makewights as MEPs clearly are.
Further with the adoption of responsible and clearly thought through plans for the methodology of Leaving_The_EU they do offer a responsible eXit and survival strategy in the form of The FleXcit plan which is more than adequate in its coverage and growing apace in its detail – unlike UKip who have never been able to present a workable eXit and survival strategy in their 21 years despite much braying!
Even to this day there are some in UKip and even on the back benches of the Tory Party who would be naiive enough to believe that to Leave_The_EU is but a simple matter of passing an Act of Parliament repealing our membership! Some are so ill informed and gullible as to believe that Article #50 is some form of trap, showing just how expensive are the tin foil hatters and conspiracy thjeorists amongst the ranks of EUroSceptics.
Sadly tyhe naiive  who have been duped into the belief that rescinding our membership would be simple it is clear they can not be blamed because why should they be better informed having put their trust in politicians who have not only created this evil monster but embroilled these United Kingdoms in the mess which was their dream – these are the same self styled political elite who are either so stupid as to believe or so dishonest as to claim that the EU can be reformed and powers repatriated.
Do not forget that some who sold our Country out to be vassals of the new EU Empire were so corrupt and treacherous as to boast they had not read the documents they had not only voted for but signed!

Owen Paterson: I’m proud of standing up to the green lobby

Writing for The Telegraph, the former environment secretary, Owen Paterson, says he is proud of standing up to the green lobby

Owen Paterson, says he is proud of standing up to the green lobby

Owen Paterson, says he is proud of standing up to the green lobby  Photo: AFP

Every prime minister has the right to choose his team to take Britain into the general election and I am confident that my able successor at Defra, Liz Truss, will do an excellent job. It has been a privilege to take on the challenges of the rural economy and environment. However, I leave the post with great misgivings about the power and irresponsibility of – to coin a phrase – the Green Blob.

By this I mean the mutually supportive network of environmental pressure groups, renewable energy companies and some public officials who keep each other well supplied with lavish funds, scare stories and green tape. This tangled triangle of unelected busybodies claims to have the interests of the planet and the countryside at heart, but it is increasingly clear that it is focusing on the wrong issues and doing real harm while profiting handsomely.

Local conservationists on the ground do wonderful work to protect and improve wild landscapes, as do farmers, rural businesses and ordinary people. They are a world away from the highly paid globe-trotters of the Green Blob who besieged me with their self-serving demands, many of which would have harmed the natural environment.

I soon realised that the greens and their industrial and bureaucratic allies are used to getting things their own way. I received more death threats in a few months at Defra than I ever did as secretary of state for Northern Ireland. My home address was circulated worldwide with an incitement to trash it; I was burnt in effigy by Greenpeace as I was recovering from an operation to save my eyesight. But I did not set out to be popular with lobbyists and I never forgot that they were not the people I was elected to serve.

Indeed, I am proud that my departure was greeted with such gloating by spokespeople for the Green Party and Friends of the Earth.

It was not my job to do the bidding of two organisations that are little more than anti-capitalist agitprop groups most of whose leaders could not tell a snakeshead fritillary from a silver-washed fritillary. I saw my task as improving both the environment and the rural economy; many in the green movement believed in neither.

Their goal was to enhance their own income streams and influence by myth making and lobbying. Would they have been as determined to blacken my name if I was not challenging them rather effectively?

When I arrived at Defra I found a department that had become under successive Labour governments a milch cow for the Green Blob.

Just as Michael Gove set out to refocus education policy on the needs of children rather than teachers and bureaucrats and Iain Duncan Smith set out to empower the most vulnerable, so I began to reorganise the department around four priorities: to grow the rural economy, to improve the environment, and to safeguard both plant and animal health.

The Green Blob sprouts especially vigorously in Brussels. The European Commission website reveals that a staggering 150 million euros (£119  million) was paid to the top nine green NGOs from 2007-13.

European Union officials give generous grants to green groups so that they will lobby it for regulations that then require large budgets to enforce. When I attended a council meeting of elected EU ministers on shale gas in Lithuania last year, we were lectured by a man using largely untrue clichés about the dangers of shale gas. We discovered that he was from the European Environment Bureau, an umbrella group for unelected, taxpayer-subsidised green lobby groups. Speaking of Europe, I remain proud to have achieved some renegotiations.

The discard ban ends the scandalous practice of throwing away perfectly edible fish, we broke the council deadlock on GM crops, so decisions may be repatriated to member countries and we headed off bans on fracking. Judge me by my opponents.

When I proposed a solution to the dreadful suffering of cattle, badgers and farmers as a result of the bovine tuberculosis epidemic that Labour allowed to develop, I was opposed by rich pop stars who had never been faced with having to cull a pregnant heifer. (Interestingly, very recent local evidence suggests the decline in TB in the cull area may already have begun.)

When I spoke up for the landscapes of this beautiful country against the heavily subsidised industry that wants to spoil them with wind turbines at vast cost to ordinary people, vast reward to rich landowners and undetectable effects on carbon dioxide emissions, I was frustrated by colleagues from the so-called Liberal Democrat Party.

When I encouraged the search for affordable energy from shale gas to help grow the rural economy and lift people out of fuel poverty, I was opposed by a dress designer for whom energy bills are trivial concerns.

When I championed brilliant scientists demonstrating genetic modifications to rice to save the lives of hundreds of thousands of children in developing countries, I was vilified by a luxury organic chocolate tycoon uninterested in the demonstrable environmental and humanitarian benefits of GM crops.

When faced with the flooding of the Somerset Levels I refused to make the popular and false excuse of blaming it on global warming, but set out to reverse the policy inherited from a Labour peeress and serial quangocrat who had expressed the wish to “place a limpet mine on every pumping station”, while deliberately allowing the silting up of drainage channels.

When I set out to shatter the crippling orthodoxy that growing the rural economy and improving the environment are mutually exclusive, I was ridiculed by a public school journalist who thinks the solution to environmental problems is “an ordered and structured downsizing of the global economy”. Back to the Stone Age, in other words, but Glastonbury-style.

Yes, I’ve annoyed these people, but they don’t represent the real countryside of farmers and workers, of birds and butterflies.

Like the nationalised industries and obstructive trade unions of the 1970s, the Green Blob has become a powerful self-serving caucus; it is the job of the elected politician to stand up to them. We must have the courage to tackle it head on, as Tony Abbott in Australia and Stephen Harper in Canada have done, or the economy and the environment will both continue to suffer.

* Owen Paterson is a former secretary of state for environment, food and rural affairs.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE

To read the original text of the article above CLICK HERE


This week, Booker takes up cudgels on behalf of Owen Paterson. Of all David Cameron’s moves in that bizarre reshuffle, he writes, one told us more about his judgement and character than any. It is hard to recall recently a more direct political insult than his contemptuous sacking of our Environment Secretary; a man who, below the media radar, has been the most effective of all his ministers.

The feelings of those aware of what Paterson achieved in two hectic years were expressed on Friday when he attended the Game Fair in Oxfordshire. Mentions of his name twice brought standing ovations from hundreds of disbelieving country folk, once in response to a fulsome tribute paid him by Nigel Farage.

When Paterson was made Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs he was, in practical terms, far better qualified for the post than anyone in the House of Commons. Some years earlier, as a countryman himself, he was a superbly well-briefed front-bench spokesman on agriculture and fisheries, travelling the world to meet experts on the scourge of bovine TB and fisheries management.

In September 2012, he took over a department that for years had been a sadly dysfunctional backwater, not least because, more than any other ministry, almost all its vast and complex responsibilities, from farming and fisheries to water and waste management, are subordinate to policies originating in Brussels.

One of his more remarkable achievements, as a “Eurosceptic” but also as a good French and German speaker, was the way he quickly came to play a leading role in all those endless meetings with his European counterparts, working the Brussels system as cleverly as any British minister has ever done, winning respect by his practical grasp and good humour even from those who disagreed with him.

Gradually, he galvanised Defra out of its long sleep, turning it into an effective player, as we saw nowhere more than in my own county of Somerset, where he made such a decisive intervention in last winter’s floods crisis and won the gratitude of hundreds of farmers for his masterminding of our remarkably successful badger cull.

This summer, dairy farms that have been losing scores of cattle every year to TB are reporting that, for the first time in decades, their herds are free of infection.

In “Westminster bubble” and media terms, none of this has counted for anything. Enraged green activists and their media allies tried to paint Paterson as “the worst environment minister ever”, while out in the countryside he is rated as easily the best.

But the tsunami of vitriolic green propaganda is all that the denizens of No 10 seemed to notice. Mr Cameron and his urban advisers were so embarrassed by the anti-Paterson hate campaign, over everything from badgers to wind farms, fracking to GM crops, that he had to be fired.

The respect Paterson had won in fighting for common sense and British interests, not just from millions of country folk but from his opposite numbers in Brussels, was far less important than what were perceived to be the electoral interests of his party.

He is replaced by a woman who appears to have no qualifications for the job and who will be totally out of her depth in Brussels. Defra will once again sink back into its dysfunctional torpor, under a minister wholly in the hands of officials who will have to tell her what to say, think and do about everything.

Cameron’s treatment of his most effective minister is not just an insult to Paterson – it is also an insult to the countryside and to the political process; a surrender to those who put mindless spin above the need to see our country sensibly and intelligently run.

When the epitaph comes to be written on Cameron’s bid to create a “Not the Conservative Party”, Booker concludes, the ignominious sacking of Owen Paterson will be seen as one of the most revealing of all his many mistakes.

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in FleXcit, FleXcit Plan, Liam Fox, Nigel FARAGE, Owen Paterson, UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

IEA, BrExit, Referendum, UKIP & Christopher Booker’s View

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/04/2014

IEA, BrExit, Referendum, UKIP & Christopher Booker’s View
.

FIRST POSTED @ CLICK HERE

.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

The IEA, The BrExit Prize, A Referendum on Leaving-The-EU, UKIP’s failure of knowledge understanding and ability & Christopher Booker’s View in The Sunday Telegraph last July!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.

IEA, BrExit, Referendum, UKIP & Christopher Booker’s View

.

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins – Greg_L-W.

.

Hi,

with the upcoming EU elections on 22-May-2014 I felt it was apposite to revisit the question on the minds of the majority of Brits which tends to stretch from the simple and in my opinion sensible Leave-The-EU option which in the long term would I believe serve our peoples, our Country and our planet best and the unworkable and dishonest idiocy of re-negotiated terms with the EU as put forward by Tories who quite clearly are either hideously ill informed as to how the EU functions or just obscenely dishonest in pretending they can change the EU and get unanimous support amongst the other vassal states – the precondition for any major change!

Revisiting an article of Christopher Bookers from last summer little or nothing has changed – UKIP still haven’t a clue and have absolutely no exit and survival strategy just a clique squabbling like ferrets in a sack to stay on the gravy train, with the aim to get more MEPs elected but with zero vision and less hope of changing ANYTHING having abjectly failed to do so to date, hence their continued failure in domestic politics!

The Torieas were shocked into a debate in The House of Commons by the Independent MEP Nikki Sinclaire who gathered well over 200,000 signatures and forced the debate to occur, a debate in which David Cameron’s Government was confronted with his largest ever rebellion and was thus forced to make an undertaking to hold a referendum, allbeit he hedged his bets as ever.

 

To carry on the fight for a referendum Nikki Sinclaire formed the ‘We demand A Referendum Now Party’ and is standing for the cause in The West Midlands as an MEP – we can but hope this hard working and refreshingly honest and open MEP is re-elected to continue her patriotic defence of Britain and her constituents.

 

Sadly UKIP having done absolutely zero to support the cause now see this as an apposite band wagon to jump on to get more income by getting more MEPs! However let us not forget thaty UKIP has no ethical leadership, lacks transparency and has such a poor selection rigging process that already candidates are falling by the wayside, exposed as racists, anti homosexual, Islamaphobic and corrupt.

 

Let us not forget that of the 19 MEPs UKIP has had elected their titular leader has subsumed almost all power to himself, controls incomes and appoints his wife and mistresses to the staff! Little wonder that of the 19 elected he has fallen out with at least half and the balance are as much use as a soup sandwich having achieved absolutely nothing of note in their period on the gracy train!

Even Ukip has no idea how to get us out of the EU trap

Our politicians are stumbling around in the dark when it comes to EU rules. There is only one way we can renegotiate our position with Europe to our advantage

Fears over trade are forcing us into a frustrating 'consensus’ position with Europe

Fears over trade are forcing us into a frustrating ‘consensus’ position with Europe Photo: Alamy
 

There is virtually no political issue that generates more ill-informed nonsense than whether or not Britain should stay in the EU. We have those 304 MPs voting for David Cameron’s wish to renegotiate our relationship with the EU and put the results to a referendum no later than 2017. We have Theresa May announcing that she is going to demand a British opt-out from 133 EU regulations on law and order, but then apply to opt in again on 35 of them. We have John Cridland, head of the CBI, repeating yet again the old canard that it would be disastrous for us to think of emulating Norway and Switzerland, the two richest countries in Europe, because although they trade freely with the EU’s single market, they have no say in shaping its rules. On and on goes such grandstanding, not touching reality at any point.

The essence of the problem is that, while the British like some aspects of the EU, other aspects make them deeply resentful, without them ever really understanding the rules or how it works. Thus, for many years, as the EU surges towards “ever closer union”, Britain has, in the words of the late Roy Jenkins, become an ever more “foot-dragging and complaining member”. On one hand, the pollsters report that up to half or more of British voters want us to leave. On the other, we have an establishment “consensus” between most of our politicians, media and big business, claiming that, although the EU in its present form is unsatisfactory and needs drastic “reform”, we must stay in for all the benefits we gain from trading with it, and because it gives us “influence”.

It is this “consensus” position that is so riddled with contradictions that it amounts to no more than multiple wishful thinking. There is no way Mr Cameron could obtain the kind of “à la carte” relationship he hints at, let alone that he could do so if re-elected, in time for a referendum in 2017. First, the rules would necessitate a new treaty, requiring procedures so lengthy that it could not possibly be completed by 2017. Second, the return of powers he claims to want would breach that most sacred principle of EU law, that national powers once surrendered can never be given back.

So, legally and practically, it is impossible that Mr Cameron could get anything of what all those MPs voted for the other day. The only semblance of a realistic understanding of all the issues involved comes from a research paper recently published by the House of Commons Library on what would be involved in a British withdrawal from the EU. This explains, with an authority no MP could muster, that the only way Britain could continue to trade freely within the single market without having to accept so much of the rest of the EU’s political baggage, would be to invoke Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

But this, of course, can only be done by a country giving notice that it wishes to leave the EU. This alone can compel its fellow-members to negotiate with it the kind of new relationship Mr Cameron says he wants. And this he could not rule out more emphatically, as again in a recent interview with El Pais, where he said there was no way he could support a vote for Britain to leave.

Regardless of Mr Cameron’s views, however, the Commons researchers then go on to explain how Britain could continue to enjoy full access to the single market by joining Norway and Switzerland as members of the European Free Trade Area (Efta), or, like Norway, as also a member of the European Economic Area. This is precisely the option Europhiles such as Mr Cridland are so desperate to misrepresent, by falsely claiming that Norway has no influence over the single market’s trading rules. Anyone who argues this has no grasp of how the system works. Not only are Efta members fully consulted in the shaping of single market legislation, but much of it now derives from global organisations above the EU, in which Norway has a voice in its own right, exercising more influence than Britain, which too often has to allow the EU to speak for it.

But it is this argument – playing on the fear that unless we remain in the EU we will be without influence and even excluded from trading with it – that would be made the centrepiece of the campaign in any referendum on Britain’s continued membership. So relentlessly would it be put over by supporters of the “consensus”, given full voice by the BBC, Open Europe and others, that it is almost a foregone conclusion that the stay-in vote would win the day.

What has so far been almost wholly lacking from the debate on all this is any properly worked-out alternative vision of what Britain’s future in the world could be if we were to regain our independence by leaving. Equally lacking, although it is again explored in the Commons research paper, is any recognition of just how incredibly complicated a British withdrawal from the EU would be, because we are enmeshed with it by such a mountain of laws and other legal obligations. To disentangle all this would present a challenge so immense that it could only be brought off by a government fully committed to the task and fired up by a vision of how well Britain could thrive outside the EU. This would require a degree of political will which so far simply doesn’t exist.

One of the odd features of this debate is that the only party committed to a British exit from the EU, Ukip, appears to have little understanding of how this could, in practice, be achieved – let alone a positive vision of how well Britain could fare outside it, to counterbalance the relentless defeatism and negativity with which the “consensus” establishment would seek to terrify us into staying in. Too many Ukip supporters take equal refuge from reality by pretending that we could simply wave a magic wand by repealing the European Communities Act. With one mighty bound we would be free. Sorted. These are children.

I confess that when I read that Commons research paper, although it did not say anything new, I did end up depressed. Its calm, common-sense reviewing of the real issues once again brings home just how inane most of the public debate over Britain’s membership of the EU has become. Without the vision and the will to work for a positive alternative, it seems we are doomed just to limp helplessly on as a “foot-dragging and complaining member” of the “European project”, as it itself staggers helplessly on into a drably visionless and ever more uncertain future. So saying, I am off for a few days to Italy to look at 15th-century paintings, from the time when Europe was still in that frenzy of creativity and intellectual engagement that was to make its civilisation the glory of the world.

To view the original CLICK HERE

One thing that has changed since Christopher wrote this article is that a wave of optimism did sweep through the informed as the IEA announced the BrExit prize offering £100K to the winner who came up with the very best and most workable exit strategy to follow the day Britain was announced it would Leave-The-EU.

For a little more detail CLICK HERE
Sadly it transpired that it would seem to have been rigged to suit, it would seem, just one judge who presented a paper immediately before the closing date and would seem to have had a hand in ensuring the apparently pre advised competitors who upheld his unworkable and ill informed paper passed to the final round.
The eventual winner chosen, it would seem by preselection, put forward a particularly ill informed paper which offerd a clearly unworkable solution which was backed by very little refertencing and researching apparent.
To be fair to the IEA they were clearly embarrassed by the exposure of Roger Bootle’s apparent dishonesty and corruption of the process that they withdrew his voting rights as a judge, however the lacked the ethics to denounce him and ensure those who seem to have, either unwittingly or deliberately, cheated were debarred.
I would hazard a guess that there was a pre scan of the 17 finalists and it was suggested that the judges should only bother reading the efforts of the predetermined submissions.
Perhaps I am being a little too harsh, but I did read every submission published and they were weak and unworkable and ill informed thus astonishingly lightweight for  matter of such gravitas.
You may by all means track down the chosen ones via The IEA’s web site and judge for yourself but when compared with the submission I believe to have been the best I would contend there was no competition and even Roger Bootle’s effort was lame in the extreme.
Judge for yourself CLICK HERE
Dr. Richard North’s submission CLICK HERE
It would seem the prize itself has sunk without trace as when you make a Google Search of the issue the media have largely ignored it, no doubt having reached the same conclusion I have here proffered. Further The IEA themselves seem embarrassed by their own apparent dishonesty and have seemingly, having been caught out, dropped the matter like a hot potato in the hope their apparent corruption is overlooked and will not damage their income stream from gullible donors!
IF my conclusion is in some way flawed then perhaps The IEA would care to explain why they, having squandered £100K of donor’s money on their lightweight and unworkable winner have failed to take the matter forward!

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment »

True Blue Tories & Farage’s Pale Blue Party Watered Down UKIP!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 31/01/2014

True Blue Tories & Farage’s Pale Blue Party Watered Down UKIP!
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

True Blue Tories & Nigel Farage’s Pale Blue Party is Watered Down to form UKIP!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,

clearly Godfrey Bloom is largely correct, whether one agrees with his foolish foot in mouth outbursts, his whoring, his lack of manners taste or common sense or his behaviour as he urinates in hotel flower pots and copulates with prosititutes on the bonnets of cars on the public highway – there is no doubt he does represent a large section of the membership of UKIP.

Bloom may represent the values of many in UKIP and let us not forget he was personally selected as a placement by Nigel Farage and selected by him as the lead candidate to ensure he became one of Farage’s MEPs (that is how democracy works in Farage’s UKIP).

The ‘pale-blue party’: Godfrey Bloom hits back at Farage’s ‘drivel’ attack

By Friday, 31 January 2014 9:58 AM
Godfrey Bloom warns Ukip could be turning into an imitation of the Tory party
Godfrey Bloom warns Ukip could be turning into an imitation of the Tory party

Godfrey Bloom has hit out at Nigel Farage for scrapping Ukip’s 2010 manifesto, saying the party has adopted a “no-policy policy”.

In a strongly-worded warning to his former colleagues, the independent MEP said the party was turning into a “don’t-frighten-the-horses, all-things-to-all-men, pale blue party”.

Writing for Politics.co.uk, Bloom lashed out at the party leadership for branding its 2010 manifesto “drivel” and undertaking a professionalisation drive aimed at getting so-called ‘Walter Mitty’ characters out of Ukip.

“The current lurch to the no-policy policy will damage Ukip in 2015,” he wrote.

“The EU election is for putting the boot into the muppets who now govern us. But in 2015 the party will have to put some credible items in the shop window.

“Ukip are now getting modest, grudging praise from the Observer and Independent. They have come into the mainstream; respectable almost. But being invited to drinks by Polly Toynbee cuts no mustard in Leeds or Hull.

“Activists who joined in despair from the modern Conservative party came to Ukip out of conviction, not for a ‘don’t-frighten-the-horses, all-things-to-all-men, pale blue party’.”

The Yorkshire and North Lincolnshire MEP, who lost the Ukip whip after he called a room full of women “sluts” and hit a broadcast journalist with a rolled up magazine, said the party was in danger of losing the qualities that had allowed it to surge in opinion polls.

“Ukip has an opportunity to break the mould: a truly radical and new party to offer something different to a tired, disillusioned and disengaged electorate,” he wrote.

“Is Ukip to be a sort of Tory party, a Thatcherite, eurosceptic think tank which will disappear if the Conservative retrieve their brand?

“Ukip does have some of the wrong people at the moment. And I think some of them dwell in Ukip’s central office.”

Farage promised a beefed-up screening system for Ukip candidates this week, in a bid to draw a line under a stream of controversial comments from party officials.

Ukip councillor David Silvester recently said extreme weather was the result of the same-sex marriage bill while former Ukip donor Demetri Marchessini paid the Telegraph for a bizarre “open letter” to columnist Libby Purves branding homosexuality an “abomination”.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

Never mind – Farage has until 24-Apr-2014 to engineer a way to place his flat mate back as top of the list.

.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Ever More See Farage’s Star as Fading & UKIP near its Zenith

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/01/2014

Ever More See Farage’s Star as Fading & UKIP near its Zenith
.

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

 

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide

of

OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU  

Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 

their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name! 

.

Ever More See Nigel Farage’s Star as Fading & UKIP near its Zenith! As the ferrets squabble for position under Farage it becomes ever clearer that he has led his party to nearly the highest level he is capable of and without him UKIP is of absolutely no consequence with far too much baggage to be likely to be revivified!

.

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

.
Hi,

it will no doubt be hard for followers of Nigel Farage’s cult and the politically gullible to accept the veracity of the following article as clearly does not sing from the same hymn sheet as their great, and staggeringly isolated, great guru would lead them to believe.

One only has to look at just howmany people said guru has fallen out with and just what hold he has over many in his clique, similarly when we speak of isolation just how vulnerable he is to certain members of his inner retinue the moment he stopy holding the strings and is unable to use tax payers money to hand out inflated salaries and the prowess of over paid positions.

Nigel Farage is particularly poorly advised but then again those around him he has hand selected to ensure they only praise him and are no challenge to him, thus there is no one of sufficient caliber to be of any real use to him as due to his ruthless and unethical style they walk in fear of his ego centric temper and devious nature.

He gives himself away, even to the most naive, by his haste in defaming those who have broken free from his control or those who date to be either critical or ethical.

Rubbish though I may find much of what passes for journalism in the MSM and particularly in The Independent, The Guardian and the gutter press, it is hard to fault the conclusions drawn by Felicity Morse in the article that follows:

Ukip as much chance of winning
European elections as finding alien life on Mars,
say British public

Felicity Morse – MONDAY 27 JANUARY 2014

FARAGE, Nigel 83

Despite Nigel Farage’s prediction that the UK Independence party will cause an “earthquake” in British politics at the European Parliament elections, Britons give Ukip as much chance of winning as finding life on Mars.

Ipsos MORI’s research reveals what the British public think is likely to happen in 2014  compared with the odds offered by Ladbrokes.

Only three in ten think it is likely that they will be the largest party, the same as think the NASA Mars Rover will find evidence of life on Mars, according to the pollsters’ representative sample of 954 adults.

The research company note that the odds from Ladbrokes suggest people are way out on UKIP’s chances as despite this, Ukip are still the most popular bet by far to win the European elections.

According to Ladbrokes, 56 per cent of punters are putting their pounds on the party’s success.

Earlier in January, a YouGov poll showed Labour were in first place and the Tories in third.

However YouGov noted at the time that this didn’t mean Ukip wouldn’t win the European Elections, writing:  “In past euro-elections, Ukip’s support has increased as the election approaches.

If this pattern is repeated, Ukip is likely to overtake Labour by polling day.” Bobby Duffy, Managing Director of Ipsos MORI Social Research Institute said: “Predictions are very tricky – as we’ve seen recently, economists and government struggle with forecasting how the economy will do, and are often surprised by better or worse figures than expected. 

It’s therefore a bit tough to expect the public to have a clearer picture of the future on these sorts of issues – the “wisdom of crowds” clearly has limits.”

“But it also suggests big gaps in knowledge of some key issues… the lack of awareness of how possible UKIP being the largest party at the European elections is important, as it will be a greater surprise to people if it does happen.”
Nigel Farage disowned his entire 2010 election manifesto last week, saying it was “drivel” and that Ukip would release new ones after the Europeans Elections. He described David Campbell Bannerman, the man who wrote the policy discussion papers as an “idiot”.

Mr Bannerman, who has since defected to the Conservative Party to be a Tory MEP for Cambridge told the  BBC Radio 4’s The World Tonight: “It was a very serious paper but Nigel could not be bothered to read it, anything to do with policy and I’m afraid it’s not good enough for someone who’s trying to be or claims to be a serious political leader.

“It’s not a political party, it’s a pressure group. Because Nigel’s on the ropes, he’s lashing out in all directions.”

Mr Farage dismisses these claims, instead writing in The Independent:”Incidentally, the most contested seat in the eastern region is currently between these two candidates.

I know who I think will make the better MEP.”

 

To view the original of this article CLICK HERE.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

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

 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&

Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to

Reclaim YOUR Future 

&

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

 

Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy

Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:

.

LEAVE-THE-EU

to Reclaim YOUR Future 

&

GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

 

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337

of: Greg_L-W@BTconnect.com

 

Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE

 

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .. Re-TWEET my Twitterings

& Publicise My Blogs 

To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU

Posted in UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Paul Sykes has overcome his 9 year sulk it seems!

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 17/11/2013

Paul Sykes has overcome his 9 year sulk it seems!
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

Paul Sykes has overcome his 9 year sulk it seems! Let us hope he brings some political sense to the table and insists UKIP concentrate on producing a responsible ‘Exit & Survival Strategy’ & concentrates on the agenda to Leave-The-EU, rather than dupe themselves into thinking they have the competence to be a political party without gravitas or leadership!!

.

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

.
Hi,

when Paul Sykes, who at the time of the Bristol Conference in 2004, was virtually UKIP’s only backer of consequence from 2001, those who were informed of the goings on within UKIP speculated as to why he had withdrawn support.

The general consensus of opinion at the time seemed to be divided between the fact that Nigel Farage had styled him the Yorkshire Dwarf and had also dishonestly promised Robert Kilroy Silk the leadership of UKIP.

There were also those who believed it may be because, secure in Farage’s promise to him of leadership of the party, Kilroy Silk had assumed the role of leader to some extent and had patently launched his own agenda; a practice actual leaders of the party seem to do with gay abandon!

I believe it had more to do with his, then pending, separation for his wife. I do not know if Paul Sykes and his wife have reconciled their differences giving him the peace of mind to rejoin the fight for Britain to Leave-The-EU or not, but I hope so.

In funding UKIP one wonders if he will fund it as before where he paid specific bills when presented or will he take a leaf out of Stuart Wheeler’s book and vie for joint treasurership displaying a modicum of sense and a clear lack of trust for the clique in central control of Farage’s party/cult!

Tory blow as tycoon Paul Sykes gives Ukip millions

Self-made businessman promises to do “whatever it takes” to help Ukip top the polls in May

Businessman Paul Sykes at his North Yorkshire home

Businessman Paul Sykes at his North Yorkshire home Photo: Lorne Campbell / Guzelian

The UK Independence Party will receive a multi-million pound boost before next year’s European elections after winning support from one of Britain’s wealthiest businessmen.

Paul Sykes, a self-made tycoon and veteran of the campaign to keep the pound 15 years ago, has promised to do “whatever it takes” to help Ukip top the polls in May.

His move deals a big blow to the Conservatives as they fight to contain Nigel Farage’s party.

Mr Sykes supported the Tories under Margaret Thatcher and Michael Howard, but has backed Ukip in the past, giving the party £1.5 million in 2004.

His latest investment in the party is expected to run into several millions. He told the Telegraph that he wanted to finance Ukip’s efforts to pull Britain out of the EU.

“It is time to tell the truth and let the people decide … I want this country to get back to becoming a self-governing nation,” he said.

“That is what I am in it for. I am not going to sit here and do nothing. It’s my final thing this, it’s my Waterloo.”

Paul Sykes is putting his millions where his mouth is, he tells Philip Johnston

Mr Farage’s party currently has 13 seats in the European Parliament after winning around 16.5 per cent of the vote in 2009, pushing Labour into third place. Pollsters believe Ukip would need to secure about 27 per cent in the elections expected on May 22 to overtake the Tories as the largest UK party in the European Parliament.

Such an outcome would send shock-waves through Westminster and especially through the Conservative Party, which has seen many activists defect to Ukip in recent months.

David Cameron’s promise of a referendum on a renegotiated EU settlement by 2017 has not stemmed the flow of support to Ukip, with many Tory Euro-sceptics unpersuaded that he can deliver a new deal for Britain.

A key development will be the removal of barriers to Romanian and Bulgarian citizens working in Britain from Jan 1. Mr Sykes, who spent an estimated £6  million campaigning against the UK joining the single currency with Sir James Goldsmith in the Nineties, has commissioned a poll showing that 74 per cent of the public are opposed to the free movement of labour from the two countries. Just 15 per cent said they were in favour.

“As a nation state, Britain is drinking in the last chance saloon,” said Mr Sykes, who in a 2010 Rich List was estimated to be worth £650 million.

“Our failure to exert any control over our border with the 27 other members of the EU means that we are on the brink of abolishing ourselves as an independent country and consigning 1,000 years of nationhood to the dustbin of history.”

He added: “I have nothing against people from Romania and Bulgaria, but given the four million immigrants we have absorbed since 1997, and given the prospect that the end of transitional controls on two of the poorest countries on the continent will trigger another wave of mass immigration … you have to drawn the line somewhere.”

Mr Sykes said he was not a Ukip member and had no party political motivation behind his decision to provide the party with funds.

“I am in this to give people a say about their future,” he said.

“We are going to roll some guns out … every person in Britain will get to know a lot more from our campaign than they have ever got to know from all the other campaigns put together.”

Mr Farage said: “I have worked with Paul and been close to him over many years and I have never seen him so determined as he is today. I have said for a long time now that I wanted to cause an earthquake on May 22 next year, and with people like Paul Sykes working with us that makes it more likely.”

Nick Clegg, the Deputy Prime Minister, yesterday defended freedom of movement within the EU. “Hundreds of thousands of British people benefit by going to live and work abroad elsewhere in the European Union. This is a two-way thing,” he told the BBC.

He said he understood concerns about the lifting of restrictions on Romanians and Bulgarians, but insisted that there would be no repeat of 2004, when Britain opened its borders to Poles and other eastern Europeans, prompting hundreds of thousands to come to the UK.

To view the original article CLICK HERE

OR with a somewhat different slant/spin:

Paul Sykes: ‘I want to set Britain free from the EU’

Paul Sykes is on a crusade to get a referendum on Britain’s membership and to restore our borders – and he’s putting his millions where his mouth is, he tells Philip Johnston

Paul Sykes at his Yorkshire home in the shadow of Fountains Abbey

Paul Sykes at his Yorkshire home in the shadow of Fountains Abbey; he is financing the Ukip advert below. ‘I am not in party politics,’ he says. ‘I am in freedom fighting’ 

Paul Sykes is David Cameron’s worst nightmare: a Ukip supporter with a pile of cash, and ready to spend it. By his own reckoning, this 70-year-old Yorkshire businessman has donated around £6 million to campaigns designed to keep Britain from the clutches of Europe.

Now, after a lengthy period avoiding the political limelight, he is again about to dig deep into his own pocket to finance one more effort to sever the UK’s 40-year tie-up with the Continent. In the past, this straight-talking self-made millionaire has helped fund Euro-sceptic Tory MPs – and was, for 27 years, even a party member. But the beneficiaries of his largesse this time will be Ukip – and his aim is to help Nigel Farage’s party top the poll in next year’s European elections. If that happens, Sykes hopes that all the major parties will then commit to a referendum on the UK’s future in Europe.

“There is only one political party at present that says it wants to be out of the EU, and there is only one political party that would deliver it – and that is Ukip,” he said. “It is the only game in town. I am certainly not wasting my time, energy and money on any of the others.”

We are speaking in the drawing room of his beautiful Gothic-style home in the shadow of Fountains Abbey, near Ripon, set in a few hundred acres of prime North Yorkshire countryside. Sykes’s story is a classic of its kind: the son of a miner, he left school with no qualifications to become a tyre-fitter. He started dealing in car parts before branching out to sell second-hand buses and lorries to the Far East. In the early 1960s, when the Beatles were taking home £1,000 a week, he was earning three times as much and driving a Rolls-Royce.

He later invested in shopping centres, including the Meadowhall, near Sheffield, which sold for more than £1 billion, netting Sykes £280 million. In 2000, he created the Planet Online internet provider and, foreseeing the 2008 financial crisis, got out of commercial property before the crash. By 2010, he was ranked the 26th wealthiest person in Britain, worth about £650 million. Famously, he has said he will not leave his children any money, beyond helping them buy a house, so that they learn how to make their own way in life.

This, then, is not a man who does anything in half measures or without single-minded determination; and the first policy in his sights is the decision to remove the remaining barriers to the settlement of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens in the UK. They have been free to come here since 2007 but not to work. From January 1, that will change, though it is unclear how many more will arrive on top of the 200,000, mainly Roma, who have already arrived. Sykes is testing the water in his own backyard first with an advert in The Yorkshire Post, which draws on a YouGov poll finding that 74 per cent of voters oppose removing the remaining controls on Romanian and Bulgarian immigration. Only 15 per cent are in favour. Last week, David Blunkett, the former home secretary, warned of riots if Roma migration continued unabated.

The advert Paul Sykes has paid for in The Yorkshire Post

“To me, borders define whether you are a sovereign nation or not,” said Sykes. “On that issue, surely to goodness, the British people need information and a referendum before they are taken down entirely. Britain can’t supply the infrastructure to supply itself, and yet here we are with open borders to bring in hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. How can we set our Treasury numbers when we don’t know how many people are in the country or are likely to come?”

I asked him why the Romanians and Bulgarians will make a difference when we have already opened the borders to others from eastern Europe. “Because they are so poor,” he said. “I have nothing against people from Bulgaria or Romania. I feel sorry for them because they will come and not get the services they think they are going to get, because we will be lucky to provide our own services. How are we going to give our people jobs? We have got to crunch time. It is madness. There is no economic or political sense left. This time people know something is not right.

“The parties are all discussing referendums because they know the feeling out there. But they are not taking the temperature. It’s taking people like me having to spend my money having opinion polls done. Why doesn’t the Government do that? People do not want the borders open: surely this should be the decision for the people it’s going to affect?”

Sykes first became involved in campaigning when he joined forces in the early 1990s with James Goldsmith, the financier, to stop what they feared was a government move to join the euro. “If it hadn’t been for me and Jimmy Goldsmith we might be in it now,” he said. “They would have called that referendum and the pro-Europeans would have won it. Jimmy spent over £30 million for campaigning on the Referendum Party. I spent £4.5 million to £5 million fighting against the euro because I couldn’t believe it would work. And it turned out exactly as I said. I don’t want any praise for that – not that the CBI and all the others who were in favour have ever written to say sorry. And it wasn’t just here – I took pages in newspapers in Denmark and we kept Denmark out of it, we kept Sweden out. They even wanted to give me an honour.”

Sykes believes that Ukip will win the most seats next May, making it impossible for the mainstream parties to duck the issue of continued membership.

“It’s hard to believe that it is 40 years since we had a referendum on whether to go into what was a Common Market,” he says. “It is now almost a common country. How have they managed to achieve that without a single direct vote by the British public? They have attempted to create a United States of Europe. We have never had a chance of stopping it or voting for or against it.

“We have lost our self-government, we have lost the ability to become efficient on tax and spend; we have lost our ability to control our economy even though we are not in the euro. It even costs us £19 billion a year to be a member of this thing. Our economy could be more efficient outside the EU.”

If, as seems likely, the Government fails to keep the border controls on Romania and Bulgaria, Sykes thinks they and Labour will pay the price at the polls in May and that Nigel Farage will be the beneficiary.

“He is very clear and very concise about what he stands for,” Sykes explained. “I am working with Ukip in order to get the people a referendum. That is the sole purpose I am in it for. I want the British people to have a say on borders and membership of the EU. And if this assistance I am going to give to Ukip brings that about, I have finished. That is as much as I can do.

“We are going to roll some guns out. Serious. Let’s put it this way: every person in Britain will get to know a lot more from our campaign than they have ever got to know from all the other campaigns put together. It is time to tell the truth and let the people decide. I have had enough of all these career politicians – MPs and MEPs, as far as I am concerned, are in it for themselves. Not all of them. But those that aren’t should speak out now.

“We will be asking all of them to state where they stand. Every MP will be asked where he stands, and his constituents will get to know. It is time for them to decide what they are going to do. I am going to go out to all the MPs and ask if they are in favour or not, and find out where they stand. They are on the wrong side of where public opinion is, and they need to be stood accountable. Every MP in the country will know his job is on the line.”

But might he go easy on those who are committed to leaving the EU? “I am not in party politics,” he says. “I am in freedom fighting. I want this country to get back to becoming a self-governing nation. That is what I am in it for. That’s all I want. I want the people to decide – and I am not going to sit here and do nothing. It’s my final thing, this – it’s my Waterloo.”

To view this article in its oeiginal context CLICK HERE
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 

Posted in UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

Will A Vote for UKIP Open the Door for Labour?

Posted by Greg Lance - Watkins (Greg_L-W) on 27/04/2013

Will A Vote for UKIP Open the Door for Labour?
.

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
&
Clean EUkip up NOW make UKIP electable! 

.

The corruption of EUkip’s leadership, 
their anti UKIP claque in POWER & the NEC 

is what gives the remaining 10% a bad name!  

.

Will A Vote for UKIP Open the Door for Labour?
Minded of the self interest & ambitions of Tory back benchers and the blackmail of the LibDims as mere political prostitutes!!

.

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
.
Hi,
it is a matter of open discussion amongst Tory MEPs and senior Tories that Cameron is ham strung by the untrustworthy and duplicitous LibDim coalition clowns.
It is clearly recognised that Cameron is aware that the LibDims are prepared to protitute any concept of ethics which they may pretend to to stay in a position of some relevance and will be only too happy to switch to a coalition with New Labour if that will keep them feeling important!
At this stage Cameron will not risk betrayal by the LibDim traitors and an early election before his plans to turn the economy from the catastrophe caused by the economic illiteracy of Labour – Cameron will not risk progress and Clegg has threatened to pull out of the coalition and force an election and join with Labour if Cameron tries to set a date for an IN/OUT referndum on membership of The EU before the election.
Already it is clear Cameron is unlikely to win a clear majority at the next election and he knows the LibDims can not be trusted and will side with Labour to get a better deal for themselves and the hell with Britain as they seek their personal fortunes through the EU!
Hence the media are starting to expose the truth about the incompetence and unprofessional nature of UKIP’s leadership – all too well aware that there is every risk that UKIP will be used as the dustbin for every unthinking protest vote egged on by UKIP fear politics and racist incitement.
This leaves the Tories in the position that being ham strung by their partners their position is at risk – IF, out of the many seats up for election in the local elections next week, Cameron looses a significant number of council seats he WILL have problems from his MEPs and back benchers IF the Tories lose under 400 seats Cameron will survive but more than that the weaker sisters in the Tories will try to hang onto their jobs by trying to remove Cameron!
It seems all too clear that UKIP under its present leadership and utterly corrupt position of self interest and fraud are unfit for purpose to lead Britain – they can’t even vet their own candidates and have a playboy maverrick as a leader who invents and trashes UKIP policy on a whim to endlessly save face himself and continue on the EU gravy train.
UKIP stand every chance of being the protest vote as Tory & LibDim voters lend them their vote for the inconsequential local elections to try to give Cameron a bloody nose to get their own way when they return to vote in the EU elections for their party and even more so in the next General Election.
UKIP is clearly no answer merely the fulcrum on which to lever a new position in preparation for the elections of 2014 & 2015.
Leading Tories are aware that the material David Bannerman delivered to pay for the third on the list as an MEP candidate in the Eastern Region is likely to bring UKIP to its knees and oust Farage & his inner clique – The facts Bannerman has already delivered could have been used for these elections but the next 2 elections were so significantly more important that they have opted to hold the facts as a ticking time bomb to ensure UKIP are fatally damaged for the EU & GE of 2014 & 2015.
The situation in the short term for the Tories is ‘difficult‘ but relative to the parlous state of Britain and the enemy within patriotism demands they hold their nerve and do not succumb to the short term threat of UKIP destabilising the local elections or the blackmail of the political prostitutes in the LibDims.
Think before you vote I shall, as I will continue to do until a party representing my values emerges, again decline the opportunity to spoil my ballot paper by granting my mandate to any political aspirant on offer – I shall write on my ballot paper Leave-The-EU.

Ukip criticised over ‘cloud cuckoo’ views of candidates

Racism is “just ethnic banter”, vigilantes should be allowed to kill paedophiles and Londoners should wear face masks to protect themselves from Eastern Europeans, some of Ukip’s local election candidates have suggested.

UKIP Leader Nigel Farage laughs as he helps campaign for the forthcoming by-election on February 22, 2013 in Eastleigh, Hampshire.

Nigel Farage, the leader of Ukip, admits there have not been background checks on all the party’s local election candidates Photo: GETTY

The party is facing questions over its vetting after campaigners criticised the “far-right connections” and “cuckoo conspiracy theories” of some of its potential councillors.

Ukip has been surging in polls ahead of local elections on May 2, with the latest survey suggesting it could win 100 seats.

However, Nigel Farage, its leader, admitted the party has not checked the backgrounds of all its 1,700 candidates, which has led the party to abandon a number of its contenders and distance itself from others when their views have been exposed.

One controversial candidate is Richard Wilkins, standing in the Isle of Wight, who suggested on his Twitter feed that childkiller Mick Philpott should have faced “chemical castration” to stop him claiming benefits for more than two children. He also suggested Mr Philpott should be “hung or burned at the stake” and objected to police charges against “3 blokes [who] kill a pedo”, adding “if they can’t do it we will”.

Mr Wilkins said he stood by his comments on “chemical castration and hanging” and wanted them printed “up in lights”.

Another candidate, Chris Scotton, who is standing in Leicestershire, has a Facebook page that endorses the far-right English Defence League.

He has “liked” groups including “No more mosques in Britain”, “Women deserve as much respect as men… LOL jk, get yah tits out luv.”, “RACISM?? NAA MATE ITS JUST ETHNIC BANTER”, and “I hate when I lose my black friend in the dark”.

Another candidate, David Waller, a candidate in Malling, Kent, suggested that Londoners need to take extreme medical precautions when restrictions on Bulgarian and Romanian immigration are lifted next year, because of the risk of tuberculosis.

“I would…suggest not going to London after January 2014 unless you absolutely have to and if you do, adopt the Japanese practice of wearing a face mask,” he wrote on his blog.

Mr Waller later told The Daily Telegraph that he had not meant the remark to be serious and he is in no way xenophobic.

Caven Vines, a candidate in Rotherham, has also written a blog rant against “so-called British Muslims”.

“Muslims go to war warring the same cloths as ordinary people who they hide behind they cover their faces, they hide behind women and children they set up rocket launches in school yards they use children to push wheel barrows into crowds and soldiers then detonate it killing innocent people SO WHO ARE THE COWARDS.

“Its about time the Government and the Police stopped pandering to these so called British Muslims and other foreign nationals.” Mr Vines has stood by his comments.

Meanwhile, the Leeds branch of Ukip has a page describing asylum seekers as “primitives” and “undesirable aliens”.

Over the last few weeks, Ukip has been forced to withdraw some of its candidates amid rows over their extreme views.

It suspended Anna-Maria Crampton, a candidate in East Sussex, over alleged comments blaming Jewish people for the Holocaust, and Sue Bowen, a candidate in Cornwall, after it emerged she was a former member of the British National Party.

However, it has embraced some candidates with controversial histories. One ex-Tory, Rob Fraser, was censured by Leicestershire County Council in 2011 for using the phrase “n*gger in the woodpile” and previously in 2009 for saying Romanians would “stick a knife in you as soon as look at you”.

Peter Wilding, a founder of the pro-Europe British Influence campaign, said Mr Farage should not “get away with a smile while saying we haven’t done due diligence” . He criticised the “cuckoo conspiracy theories” of some candidates and the “far-right connections” of others.

However, a Ukip spokesman last night blamed Conservatives for trying to “traduce people supporting Ukip”.

“UKIP is made up of ordinary people many of whom are young and have made the odd excessive comment on new media,” he said. “However, I am perfectly prepared to answer every criticism that [Conservative] central office has laid at our door after they have told me how many Romanians and Bulgarians they expect to come to London in the next five years.”

To view the original article CLICK HERE
.

Regards,

Greg_L-W..

~~~~~~~~~~#########~~~~~~~~~~
 

 INDEPENDENT Leave-the-EU Alliance

&
Work With THE MIDNIGHT GROUP to
Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK
Deny the self serving political clique ANY Democratic claims to legitimacy
Write Upon Your Ballot Paper at EVERY election:
.
to Reclaim YOUR Future 
&
GET YOUR COUNTRY BACK

Posted by: Greg Lance-Watkins

tel: 01594 – 528 337
Accuracy & Copyright Statement: CLICK HERE
Summary, archive, facts & comments on UKIP: http://UKIP-vs-EUkip.com
DO MAKE USE of LINKS & >Right Side Bar< & The Top Bar >PAGES<
Also:
Details & Links: http://GregLanceWatkins.Blogspot.com
UKIP Its ASSOCIATES & DETAILS: CLICK HERE
Views I almost Totally Share: CLICK HERE
General Stuff archive: http://gl-w.blogspot.com
General Stuff ongoing: http://gl-w.com
Health Blog.: http://GregLW.blogspot.com
TWITTER: Greg_LW

 Please Be Sure To .Follow Greg_LW on Twitter. Re-TWEET my Twitterings
& Publicise My Blogs 
To Spread The Facts World Wide
of
OUR-ENEMY-WITHIN

&

To Leave-The-EU
 
Enhanced by Zemanta

Posted in UKIP | Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a Comment »

 
%d bloggers like this: