gimlet

This was on the main UKIP site, under the MEP section for Roger Knapman, but now appears to have been removed - very odd!

IndDem Group "wrong"


WEDNESDAY, 05 DECEMBER 2007

UKIP MEP Roger Knapman has strongly criticised IndDem leaders for pursuing a "soft" policy on an important issue of principle.

He has formally objected to plans to support a "compromise" Marine Directive and has made it clear he will vote against it.

In a letter to one of the IndDem leaders Hans Blokland, he writes:"I cannot support this agreement. You are signing me up, via the Inddem Group, to an EU directive, when the group is well aware that UKIP policy is to oppose all EU legislation. "I am also disappointed that you gave such short notice - 10 o'clock this morning from yesterday afternoon - for members to lodge their objections."

Mr Knapman said this was not the first example of the IndDem Group trying to bounce members into supporting pro-EU policies. He said it was wrong that UKIP MEPs should be expected to support the extension of EU power when they were elected on a clear mandate to oppose the EU and to work for withdrawal. Whatever way you looked at it, the "compromise" Marine Directive meant another directive, further extension of EU power and measures that were against the UK's national interest. "I am not going to yield to this pressure to go native," said Mr Knapman.

brian lee

Once you get involved in the workings of the EU at all it is a matter of opinion what constitutes 'going native'.

Just after Jeffrey Titford was elected as an MEP in1999 he addressed a few activists who were clebrating his victory in my garden. He said then that he would vote against all legislation. I used the opportunity to issue a statement to that effect to the local press. His office was quick to clarify what he had said by another statement to the effect that he would oppose all legislation unless it befited the people of the UK. In my opinion that was recognising the EU right from the start of UKIP's involvement.

For the UKIP MEPs to join a group in the EU Parliament that was Eurosceptic rather than anti-EU was against the principles of UKIP, and joining committees was definitely 'going native'.

Members of UKIP were never allowed to participate in any debate on what its MEPs should do, once the Party had decided to take their seats if elected. This was a matter that should have been clarified at the time the Party Constitution was changed from being abstentionist.

However, the Parliamentary Group led by Nigel Farage was so powerful within UKIP that it could decide for itself what constituted, 'going native'.

Independent UKIP

Brian, I note with interest your comments on the history of UKIP's involvement in the European parliament. For UKIP meps to vote against, for example, EU parliamentary legislation to abolish the CFP would be at the very least utterly humiliating and probably result in the destruction of the party. But if such legislation was to come before that 'parliament' your position is clear that the UKIP meps should vote against it. That is utterly crazy.

Who decided that then? Presumably not the members because you earlier state that Or could you be using the words "member" and "party" in a way that might lead objective persons to wrongly conclude they are entirely separate entities?

I think, with the greatest respect, you should perhaps take more interest in what is happening in your own party right now rather than what happened several years ago in a party you should have moved on from. Is the Union finished as your newest high profile member has stated on the ED website? Do you have more substantial arguments against the BNP than as stated on the ED website that their party name does not have England or English in their title? What is your view about the massive loans from certain senior ED members to the party - for example, does that not lead to them having undue influence over the party?

harryaldridge

I disagree. Of course UKIP should recognise the EU. Why? Because it does exist. So if UKIP MEPs have a chance to vote for legislation which for example handed powers back to the UK, are you saying they should not take it?

Also, sitting on committees etc is beneficial to gather information about what is being planned next. UKIP promised to be 'an early warning system' and so it seem consistent.

And being part of a eurosceptic group, as the largest single party in that group, has benefits. Fine, members have their differences but so do parties in other groups.

I just feel that people who think we should refuse to take up our seats or co-operate with anybody else is being stupid. Principled, but stupid.

We are fighting a battle on two fronts: the EU & the British media/people. We need tio build our credibility and figt with logical arguments. Frankly, to let most UKIP members anywhere near party decision making would be a disaster.

__________________
http://vindicovindico.blogspot.com

charlie endell

Well said, Harry. I'm not sure about the "principled" bit, though.

Petrina

UKIP MEPs have been voting for and against EU legislation ever since the British public placed them there ,so it would be a huge change in approach for them to simply stop voting ,although one can see the logic of them simply remaining neutral on everything .
Knapman appears to be stating that this particular piece of legislation is "against Britsh interests".
Anyone know re the detail of this ?

Millennium3

Threats can be turned to opportunities. Clearly there is now a threat of RK [and other MEPs?] splitting with the leadership along with the members represented by Phoenix - for there to be any hope of getting Britain out of Europe there needs to be as much of a combined effort by the anti EU movement as possible. This won't be helped if there are more splits.

If there should be a split amongst the MEPs how could it be resolved? One way would be to operate a system of consultative management whereby the opinion of the members was sought on important or divisive issues before any action was taken [much easier if all members were on line]. The leadership would not be bound by the opinion of the members [the leader is elected to lead], but it would be sensible for them to give some indication of why they had taken a contrary view, particularly when there was a sizeable majority for the opinion being discarded.

So - there is a difference of opinion between the past and present leadership on an important issue - if NF asked the opinion of the membership and followed that judgement, neither NF or RK could seriously complain of the outcome. I am sure that those members attracted to Phoenix would be heartened if such a system were in operation.

By treating these threats of internal conflict in the party as an opportunity to resolve both issues, UKIP could become far more electable - for surely the body of opinion of the combined membership is likely to be more in tune with the people - the electorate - than a handful of people far removed from the norms of most peoples lives.

The body membership is a resource which could be used to the Party's advantage.

brian lee

I am entitled to have an interest in any political party I choose to. As it happens, I am constituent of two UKIP MEPs.

On the specifics of the decision to change the UKIP Constitution so that if elected, the MEPs would take their seats, there was no detail about how far they would go in the matter of voting and joining other groups. The latter was only decided by Holmes, Farage and Titford after they had been elected in 1999. At the meeting of Party members one of the main arguments for taking the seats was the promise of wads of EU money to be used against the EU. This ploy subsequently was found not to work.

I agree that it would be daft to vote against anything that was seen to benefit the UK, hence my view already stated a few weeks ago that they should not vote at all.

If you contact Greg Lance Watkins he will tell you his idea for voting which is to riducle the whole process.

On the specifics of my opinions in relation to the English Democrats, I am satisfied with the policy of an English Paliament within a reconstituted United Kingdom. I will go no further than that on this forum.

Petrina

The is the second time (to my knowledge )that RK has stated that he is concerned that NF and co are going native .

Perhaps we could have some more info on what in particular is going on re this vote on the fisheries ,otherwise RK`s posting is a tad nebulous .

Mark Croucher

On the contrary, this ploy has given UKIP a structure, staff, political assistants, office space, office equipment and a whole host more, without which UKIP could not function.

To suggest that taking the seats has been of no benefit to UKIP is absurd.

Rgds

Mark