Bellatrix

UKIP haven't voted for any directives, the only things they vote for are votes to remove articles or to support amendments which would lessen the harmful impact of a directive, such as making sure that pesticides could be put on sports fields and on the side of the road.

And they will not do so with this marine directive. The whole UKIP delegation will be voting against the report and against Mr Blokland's amendment. The group have an arrangement where they don't block amendments being made in the name of the group as there need to be a certain number of signatories for an amendment to be allowed. The other parties in the Ind Dem group have regularly allowed UKIP to put in amendments which did not coincide with their beliefs and UKIP will return the favour, as we have been doing since the group was formed.

There is a statement from Nigel Farage on the UKIP website.

Bellatrix

?????????????????????????????????????????????

mkpdavies

Not really a good thing in my mind in the long term. How can it be a good thing that UKIP needs the EU to function? Why is the one party that is supposed to despise all that the EU stands for, the one party that can't function without its filithy lucre.

Taking the quick fast buck now just destroys a lot of credibility for me. The money is heavily laden with strings and being a state funded party means there is less requirement to please the members of the party. That for me is a corrupt position, especially given UKIP's stated goals.

We are now in the absurd position of giving the EU credibility, by having all our key personel dancing along to its tune. The fact so much effort is being put into playing along to this charade masquerading as democracy, instead of showing it the contempt it deserves, disturbs me.

Pimps give their prostiutes presents and free drugs when they first start doing business. The hookers probably think it is great to start with, but in the end selling your soul for the immediete gain gets you nowhere. That is what UKIP is now. A pathetic prostitute, that sold out its integrity for short term financial gain.

The parasite approach probably is a plausible strategy, if the sole goal is to destroy the EU, then pack up an go home. However, parasites don't do anything more than suck the blood, while UKIP seem to be pumping blood back in, by giving the EU more credit than it deserves.

Also I would suggest that UKIP is failing to address the real issue. The real issue isn't the EU, as it wouldn't be an issue at all if it weren't for the REAL issue. The real issue being our own fake democracy and the traitors/actors that create its illusion. Thus UKIP should be focused on winning power. If it doesn't do that, then the problem doesn't go away.

UKIP will never win power as long as it is reliant on the EU to survive. It will never win power, if it doesn't have winning in Britain as it's core mission. The only thing that will make people slowly choose a different party, is if it proves itself to be different. That means having principled integrity and being a beacon to all freedom lovers, patriots and democracy advocates. Then you will not need to go cap in hand to the institution that you are supposed to want removed.

Look at Ron Paul in the States. He doesn't need the money of the NAU, because he has built a strong reputation by being principled. He is raising millions because ordinary people having a champion at last. Even if he doesn't win this time, he has started a movement that will spread across the globe. UKIP should recognise this and seize the opportunity to take advantage of it.

Trying to play the old guard at their own shabby game is a waste of time. UKIP urgently need to appraise what it really is here for and then go about making itself attractive to the growing number of people who are growing sick of the way things are going.

Get the foundations right and the rest will follow. At the moment we are built on a swamp. Get the foundations firmed up, then we might start to make progress.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Lib Dems

brian lee

I understand the EU gave the money for work in connection with the MEPs and their work. It was not provided for Party political purposes such as the so-called Regional Organisers and other Party functions and facilities.

I think Matt makes very good points in reply to Mark.

I didn't expect Bellatrix to be too impressed by my mentioning GLW. However, I think I now have his scenario right enough to retail it.

Each day the EU is in session the UKIP MEPs carry out a ceremony. There is a procession of MEPs to the door of the Parliament preceeded by someone dressed to resemble a Beefeater. He carries a cushion on which is a casket. In the casket is a large gold coin of the realm. This is removed from the casket and tossed in the air by the leader of UKIP. If it lands head upwards, all UKIP MEPs vote in favour of all the motions that day. If it lands tail upwards, they vote against. This seems to be a good way of showing contempt for the EU. Hopefully as it is directly related to the EU, the cost of it will be a legitimate expense. For this to work and become a popular tourist attraction it must be carried out every day without fail.

Of course it is completely barmy, but don't we all agree that so is the EU?

Mark Croucher

But of course, the Ron Paul approach won't work inthe UK, for a whole host of reasons. Firstly, the press is not truly free in a party political sense. Secondly, and don't mis-understand me, Ron Paul was hardly a pauper, and in appealing to a Texan audience, gained enough additional significant financial support to mount credible political advertising campaigns in the 14th Congressional District. Political advertising of this type is regulated in the United Kingdom to the point of being expressly prohibited. It is also considerably more expensive because of the restricted number of terrestrial channels and the smaller geographical areas - ie it is hard to the point of impossibility to target a specific geographical area, such as the 14th Congressional District, even should the restrictions on political advertising be lifted, which of course is unlikely anyway as they tend to support the status quo. I say this not to knock Ron Paul in any way, simply to point out that the bedrock of his success is not possible in this country to the extent to which you imply. Beyond his congressional district, his presidential campaign is doomed to failure from the start because even Ross Perot couldn't fight the influence of the Democrats and Republicans when it came down to it.

To return to UKIP specific issues. Most of the complaints levelled against UKIP, particularly here, centre on disorganisation, lack of support and a lack of leadership. Well, I've got news for you. Those issues require money to put right. So you can do it two ways. You can either not take the seats, not take the money, rely on donations to pay for everything (while having no-one who currently holds an elective mandate to speak for the party), hope that somehow you gain publicity, and spend what's left after administration on campaigning. OR you can take the seats and the money, use that money for policy development, MEPs staffing and dual-role staff, retain elected members with a regional mandate from the electorate, and use almost all of the donations to pay for campaigning.

Make no mistake, had UKIP not taken its seats in '99, we'd have lost them in '04, and seen the party set back to where it was in about '93 ie nowhere. The election of so many MEPs gave UKIP a political credibility which, whatever the problems since, it still retains, at least in part. A single appearance on the 6pm news, in the Telegraph, or on the Today programme is worth more than 200,000 leaflets haphazardly delivered by volunteers at sporadic intervals in terms of raising public awareness, and you are kidding yourself if you think that is not the case.

I agree that it could be argued that not taking the seats would have been a principled thing to do, but do you want us out of the EU or not? We could all sit and be principled until the cows come home, but if the only electoral support that raises is based on a once every five year series of articles on how UKIP are a wasted vote because they won't take the seats even if elected, we may as well all go home now.

It's easy to sit and chuck rocks at the current policy, the source of staff funding and the occupation of seats and claim its achieved nothing, but it simply isn't true. Even the LibDems now want a referendum on our continued membership of the EU: and let's face it, 10 years ago, the thought of even asking that question would have been anathema to the traditional parties, let alone suggesting a referendum on it. UKIP returned 16% of the national vote on our core issue in 2004, again, something which simply would not have been possible without already having sitting MEPs and the TV access which they gave us during the campaign and subsequently. From our views being seen as crackpot and bordering on the xenophobic in the mid-90's, they are now on the very edge of becoming mainstream. So while the good ship UKIP may have been buffeted by various storms and nearly overcome by heavy seas on several occasions, she continues on her course, and is appreciably closer to her destination that she was at the beginning of her voyage. The problem with rigid, unmoving principle is that it tends to snap off in a heavy gale, leaving the good ship UKIP adrift and stranded.

I know the standard response here is 'yes, but....', followed by a direct contradiction, but please be realistic. Politics is the art of the possible, and to think anything else is akin to believing in yogic flying. Britain and America were diametrically opposed to communism, but allied with the Russians to fight Germany, when the principled approach would have been to refuse an alliance, allow Russia to be overrun, and then see the British Empire mopped up. I'm rather glad we abandoned our principled dislike of communism in favour of a rather more worldly approach, because I don't speak German.

Rgds

M

Petrina

Bellatrix wrote ; UKIP haven't voted for any directives, the only things they vote for are votes to remove articles or to support amendments which would lessen the harmful impact of a directive, such as making sure that pesticides could be put on sports fields and on the side of the road.


So they do vote on EU legislation



Bellatrix wrote;And they will not do so with this marine directive. The whole UKIP delegation will be voting against the report and against Mr Blokland's amendment. The group have an arrangement where they don't block amendments being made in the name of the group as there need to be a certain number of signatories for an amendment to be allowed. The other parties in the Ind Dem group have regularly allowed UKIP to put in amendments which did not coincide with their beliefs and UKIP will return the favour, as we have been doing since the group was formed.


So we are voting against Blockland`s amendment but we are not blocking it-could you explain Bellatrix ?

There is a statement from Nigel Farage on the UKIP website.

Can`t find it.

mkpdavies

Quote:

I agree that it could be argued that not taking the seats would have been a principled thing to do, but do you want us out of the EU or not? We could all sit and be principled until the cows come home, but if the only electoral support that raises is based on a once every five year series of articles on how UKIP are a wasted vote because they won't take the seats even if elected, we may as well all go home now.

Not if we still have a bunch of muppets who will do exactly the same when in charge.

This is the big issue for me now. Just getting out of the EU isn't enough, we have to make sure we get a decent government to replace it.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Lib Dems

mkpdavies

Really? I see no evidence of this. UKIP still gets smashed in elections, still has to rely on state funding and still is seen as a fringe party.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Lib Dems

SponPlague

It's worth remembering that our MEPs have stated on numerous occasions, that:

a) Voting is done en-block, frequently, which means people forget what they're voting for, becasue so many are lumped together...

b) Calls for an electronic vote, rather than the "show of hands", can often produce a completely different result!

SO, perhaps the question should be, not, should they vote, but rather, will the result be correct?

Millennium3

Herein lies the problem. The leadership have wanted to to pretend that UKIP is a large party when in reality it is a small party. Living in such a fantasy world is bound to lead to painful experiences as reality repeatedly rears its ugly head - and there have been enough of those episodes! It is the job of press officers to perpetuate the fantasy by convincing its audience that the lie they have just told is true.

If UKIP wants to succeed it has to use the resources it does have to the best advantage. The membership [who the leadership have divorced] is its main asset. If each member delivered just 10 leaflets a week it would be that easy to achieve the 200,000 leaflets mentioned. If each member delivered 100 each week 2 million would be delivered - 4 million a month! However, to obtain that kind of commitment from the membership it is necessary to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it and responding to reasonable questions and suggestions.

Also most of the membership could afford to pay £5 per month membership - this would provide £100,000 a month, three times what is currently being provided by this source. However, to achieve this it would, again, be necessary to stop treating the members as cretins and a necessary evil.