Lawrie Boxall wrote:
Quote:
|
The first we heard about it was when the election address leaflet was presented to the NEC including the referendum message, completely contrary at that time to UKIP policy. We were told that Sykes would pull his funding of the election campaign unless we agreed to the policy change. Amid much grumbling about the membership not liking it the NEC reluctantly accepted it.
|
It was a wrong decision, Lawrie, and the NEC failed in its duty by not vetoing the policy change. I realise it was extremely unlikely that UKIP would win enough seats to form a government but a party's manifesto and election address are the basis on which it solicits votes, regardless of the likelihood of it winning enough of them to put its promises into effect. Had UKIP by some miracle been able to form a government in 2001, its commitment to holding a referendum would have prevented it from immediately carrying out its principal constitutional aim of repealing the European Communities Act (1972). Had it held the referendum and lost, which was not unlikely considering the EU money that would have been pumped into the 'stay in' side, a UKIP government would have had either to break faith with the electorate by ignoring the referendum result, or by respecting the result break its own constitution's principal undertaking. I know the financial and other pressures were great, but by giving in to them the NEC proved its unfitness to govern either party or country.