charlie endell

Graham Booth sent the following letter to SW members. I was stunned when I received it.

I am a political scientist, with an extensive knowledge of how EU political Groups and pan-European parties work. I have worked at close quarters with them. I have also been a UKIP member for a decade, and have worked in the EU institutions. My comments on Booth's letter are in italics, and are my own comments, not those of the moderators of this forum.


To All South West Members

My fellow SW MEP Roger Knapman has asked you to vote on whether or not he should leave the Ind Dem group, enclosing a "summary of the arguments". Many of you have commented that this seemed to give only the negative side of a complex subject and asked whether they could be given the positive side. This I do below.

First, though, a personal remark if I may. I have always tried to give my loyal support to each of UKIP’s leaders since I joined the party in 1996. Notably I gave Roger my full backing over his stand against Kilroy-Silk’s brazen attempt to take over the leadership and was more than happy with the way he ran the party. Equally, I am extremely happy with the way that Nigel Farage is running the party and, in particular, with his leadership of the UKIP MEPs whilst we are in Brussels and Strasbourg. His knowledge of the workings of the European Parliamentary system is extensive.

Yes he does have an extensive knowledge. That might explain why is it that MEP’s are not aware of all the allowances they are entitled to. Chapter 8 expenditure, for example, allows them to spend money in the UK. None of them knew of this until recently, it was "taken care of by the leader".


Now to the actual issues raised:

To start, I believe that it would be almost impossible to operate in the E.P. without being a member of a group. Our staff in Brussels - researchers and assistants - are employed by the group and work as a team. Without them we would have no voting lists prepared - and heaven help us if we inadvertently vote the wrong way! Research for articles that we submit to the British press is done for us by these staff members, as well as many other mundane chores.



Nonsense. If all UKIP MEP’s left Ind Dem, the staff contracts would be transferred to Non-attached, as the entire Ind Dem Group would collapse, due to not meeting the threshold for forming a group. The research would still continue, as would the mundane chores. As for working as a team, what planet is Booth on? There has been little team spirit in the last year, with divisions among the Brussels staff reflecting the divisions in the party as a whole. As for voting lists, UKIP MEPs recently failed to support an amendment rejecting the Lisbon Treaty. Such competence...!


Another advantage of group membership, with Nigel as "co-president", is the right for UKIP to claim speaking time, when we supply virtually the only opposing voice within the Parliament (observed by the world’s press) on every subject that crops up. A sublime example, that I recall with some pleasure, was the occasion when it enabled Nigel to confront Tony Blair after the UK’s six-month presidency, causing Blair - for the only time that I can remember - to completely lose his temper. No-one else dared to confront him as Nigel did - and all of UKIP’s MEPs were there (occupying the whole of the front row - much to Blair’s dismay) to witness the event. That is far from being an isolated example, facilitated solely because of our group membership. That is a lot better than our usual 60 or 90 second time allowance, as individuals. We are in a battle for the hearts and minds of people and it would be tragic to sacrifice such opportunities.

Some distortion here. UKIP MEP’s could still have sat in the front row without being in Ind Dem, although it is true that Nigel may not have got the opportunity to confront Blair . As for speaking time in general, Dan Hannan and Roger Helmer now manage to get more speaking time since they left the EPP and moved to non-attached. They also speak on constitutional matters, as opposed to our MEPs who tend to get brief slots on subjects they know little about.Besides, does how much time our MEP’s speak in Brussels and Strasbourg affect either our vote or the promotion of our core ideal of leaving the EU? Being in Ind Dem did not prevent us being thrashed by the BNP in the London elections.


Next is the question of finance. A group does have access to funding in excess of an individual MEP. Although operated under strict conditions, this was how the recent "Remote Control" DVD and, in the past, several newspaper campaigns were financed. This however is a minor point compared to the issue of how MEPs' resources are used. Already MEPs have control of substantial office expenses, but the research budgets are pooled for our joint benefit. Apart from economies of scale, there is also the question of transparency. Would it be in the interests of UKIP for individual MEPs to spend this as they saw fit and would that give rise to criticism as to how they spent the considerable sums involved? Apart from Roger, the UKIP MEPs are quite happy for UKIP to benefit as a party. Would it be a good thing for us all to do our own thing or might this risk bad publicity?

If we had not been in Ind Dem, the Remote Control video could have been produced with the MEPs’ names on it instead of Ind Dem. Look at the material produced by Jim Allister and other non-attached MEPs. This is total nonsense. Staffing and office budgets would be unaffected. The only budget that would be affected is the 'Information and Communication' budget; what MEPs know as '4000 budget'. Here they would technically lose something like 12,000 euros a year, but as certain staff costs would be transferred to the Parliament administration instead of coming out of the 4000 money, they would actually be BETTER OFF OUT!


Next, how are UKIP perceived on the Continent? I can assure you that nobody in the European Parliament has any doubts at all about UKIP’s position - demanding Britain's withdrawal from the EU. We make it abundantly clear every time we speak. No UKIP MEP has ever suggested that we should settle for reforming the EU.


Nor did Jens-Peter Bonde for his first twelve years in the EP! But now he has committed to the EU, and will be campaigning in 2009 for the EU Democrats, a pan-European Party. And he will be aided WITH IND DEM MONEY!


Do we have an alternative to the Ind Dem group? We would not want to sit in the non-aligned group along with Mussolini and Le Pen and candidly we are unlikely to ever find enough "outers" to form a group, so we have to work with people who take a different view to us on that issue. On the great issue of the day, the EU constitution, all but one of us - Blokland - are totally opposed to it. Using the strength of our combined numbers we were able to play our part in the French referendum. Now we are doing the same in Ireland, the only country being given a chance to have their say on the treaty.


This is nonsense. Non-aligned is by definition non-aligned. Yes, it contains a few unpleasant individuals like Le Pen and Alessandra Mussolini, but it also contains Dan Hannan, Roger Helmer, Jim Allister, and a host of other individuals who have chosen not to be in a group.



What about concentrating efforts in UK as opposed to the E.P.? Let's look at this factually. My time at the parliament is limited to 24 nights per year in Strasbourg and about 18 nights in Brussels. The rest of the time I attend meetings in UK, whenever and wherever I am invited, diary permitting. By attending the E.P. on those few occasions I receive a full salary and expenses, from which UKIP benefits enormously. I believe we have got the balance right. We were elected to go to the E.P. by 2.67 million voters "to get Britain out of the EU". So we went to Brussels and took up our seats. Also, by attending those very boring committee meetings, we get information that is unavailable elsewhere and ammunition to present to those numerous UK meetings that we attend.


This is irrelevant to the issue of whether UKIP MEP’s should be in a group or not. It is also the case that Booth is in Brussels so little because he does not engage with the duties he was elected for: Rocking up and sitting in his office doing Soduku puzzles before going to dinner is not good value for the taxpayer.


There are many other functions that we perform, not least in organising demos within the parliamentary chamber itself, which really upsets the Eurocrats! I personally think that the UKIP MEPs do a damned good job, under great stress, and trust Nigel to lead us forward successfully, as Roger did during his term of office. I also think that we are much more effective as part of a group, and at the same time counter the usual accusations of being isolationist little Englanders.


But demonstrations in the Parliamentary chamber have still not won us votes! So what if it upsets the Eurocrats? Some of our stunts (e.g. the chickens) are just schoolboy politics unworthy of a serious political party. Again, this is of no relevance to the question of being in Ind Dem.


The letter is signed by

Graham Booth MEP