Time to leave Ind-Dem?

Geoffrey Collier · 08-04-2008, 02:22 PM

harryaldridge: Sorry Harry, but I think we must disagree again. Central to being in the IDG group, is the decision to merge with cross-border parties. I believe that we should remain aloof, and should we eventually be penalised for not merging, we must insist that such discrimination against us, violates our right under the U.N. Convention, to exercise Domestic Sovereignty.

The, 'Little Englander' jibe should not even be treated seriously. Europe is free to day because of the United Kingdom. When America was neutral, when China was engaged in Civil War, Russia was building, 'socialism in one country' (and subsequently signed a non-aggression pact with Germany) England (UK), and much of Europe occupied, the Empire and Commonwealth fought to the finish. Admittedly, the chemistry of the circumstances were to change, but, as in WW1 we were the only nation to become involved on, day one, and to emerge victorious and intact at the end. That is what Little Englanders do, when cricket become too boring.

As for the extra money the party we will get by our MEPs' remaining in the IDG; carry on like that Harry, and you will soon be given your own comedy show. We haven't even seen 85% of the money given by our own supporters
to Ashford.

On a 'lighter note', I met an enthusiastic Portsmouth footbal fan after their game on Saturday. I reminded him- because I always like to be positive- that the last time Portsmouth won the FA Cup, World War two started a few weeks later. Expect to be in the trenches by Christmas, I said. 'If Portsmouth wins the Cup, I won't mind that' , he said. Marvellous chaps these Little Englanders.

Truthwillout · 08-04-2008, 06:00 PM

Anthony - I see no problem in you expressing your own opinions on your forum. But I don't think you should say things that are simply wrong.

Membership of the IndDem may bring some benefits. But not financial ones. The money follows the MEPs. They would get the same access to the same budget whether they were in IndDem, another Group or non-aligned.

If you don't believe that then please read the EU 4000 budget rules which are quite clear (if rather lengthy).

Truthwillout · 08-04-2008, 06:07 PM

I should have said that the main benefit is that it gives Nigel status in the European Parliament. He is co-chairman of the Group and thus can carry weight in the Parliament and in negotiations with other Groups. UKIP MEPs can thus become European politicians rather than just awkward, anti-EU troublemakers.

However do we want to play the EU game? Do we want our MEPs to become careerists? There are arguments both ways.

marcus · 08-04-2008, 06:25 PM

I think it is important we are part of a group and why not the ind/dem group - provided we are singing from the same hymm sheet. For our own credibility, I do think it looks alot better.

eublues · 08-04-2008, 06:43 PM

On the Ind Dem site, the difference between UKIP and the other parties is made plain - i.e. that UKIP seeks withdrawal from the EU, whereas the other just want to protect the independence of action of individual states. On that basis I can't see any problem with UKIP being in this grouping.

Anthony Butcher · 08-04-2008, 06:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Truthwillout

Anthony - I see no problem in you expressing your own opinions on your forum. But I don't think you should say things that are simply wrong.

Membership of the IndDem may bring some benefits. But not financial ones. The money follows the MEPs. They would get the same access to the same budget whether they were in IndDem, another Group or non-aligned.

If you don't believe that then please read the EU 4000 budget rules which are quite clear (if rather lengthy).

Hmm, I always understood that the groups had resources above and beyond those of individual MEPs. I am not a financial expert, but the 2006 accounts appear to me to show 2.9 million euros of expenditure for the group.

If you are right, then I can see no reason for remaining in the group.

Petrina · 08-04-2008, 09:11 PM

If Roger is going to be at all professional about the SW deciding on whether he is in or out of the group one can only hope that he will put a reasoned argument to them before they vote .

We await it with interest

douglas denny · 08-04-2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

quote Petrina
If Roger is going to be at all professional about the SW deciding on whether he is in or out of the group one can only hope that he will put a reasoned argument to them before they vote .

We await it with interest

We all await with interest and baited breath ........

I hear on the wind ..........

There was a mandatory meeting arranged for all the UKIP MEP's to be present on the 2nd Apl in Brussels, when Roger was also in Brussels, to discuss this issue of the Ind Dem Group, but he did not make himself available at the meeting for the discussion ........

DED.
-

Anthony Butcher · 09-04-2008, 12:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by douglas denny

There was a mandatory meeting arranged for all the UKIP MEP's to be present on the 2nd Apl in Brussels, when Roger was also in Brussels, to discuss this issue of the Ind Dem Group, but he did not make himself available at the meeting for the discussion ....

It sounds like relations have broken down quite severely. I am sure that there was a very good reason for his non-attendance of course.

charlie endell · 10-04-2008, 06:58 AM

Knapman was in the UK on the day of the meeting, not Brussels.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

08-04-2008, 02:22 PM	#11 (permalink)
Geoffrey Collier Senior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 1,323	harryaldridge: Sorry Harry, but I think we must disagree again. Central to being in the IDG group, is the decision to merge with cross-border parties. I believe that we should remain aloof, and should we eventually be penalised for not merging, we must insist that such discrimination against us, violates our right under the U.N. Convention, to exercise Domestic Sovereignty. The, 'Little Englander' jibe should not even be treated seriously. Europe is free to day because of the United Kingdom. When America was neutral, when China was engaged in Civil War, Russia was building, 'socialism in one country' (and subsequently signed a non-aggression pact with Germany) England (UK), and much of Europe occupied, the Empire and Commonwealth fought to the finish. Admittedly, the chemistry of the circumstances were to change, but, as in WW1 we were the only nation to become involved on, day one, and to emerge victorious and intact at the end. That is what Little Englanders do, when cricket become too boring. As for the extra money the party we will get by our MEPs' remaining in the IDG; carry on like that Harry, and you will soon be given your own comedy show. We haven't even seen 85% of the money given by our own supporters to Ashford. On a 'lighter note', I met an enthusiastic Portsmouth footbal fan after their game on Saturday. I reminded him- because I always like to be positive- that the last time Portsmouth won the FA Cup, World War two started a few weeks later. Expect to be in the trenches by Christmas, I said. 'If Portsmouth wins the Cup, I won't mind that' , he said. Marvellous chaps these Little Englanders.

08-04-2008, 06:00 PM	#12 (permalink)
Truthwillout Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: London Posts: 35	Anthony - I see no problem in you expressing your own opinions on your forum. But I don't think you should say things that are simply wrong. Membership of the IndDem may bring some benefits. But not financial ones. The money follows the MEPs. They would get the same access to the same budget whether they were in IndDem, another Group or non-aligned. If you don't believe that then please read the EU 4000 budget rules which are quite clear (if rather lengthy).

08-04-2008, 06:07 PM	#13 (permalink)
Truthwillout Junior Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: London Posts: 35	I should have said that the main benefit is that it gives Nigel status in the European Parliament. He is co-chairman of the Group and thus can carry weight in the Parliament and in negotiations with other Groups. UKIP MEPs can thus become European politicians rather than just awkward, anti-EU troublemakers. However do we want to play the EU game? Do we want our MEPs to become careerists? There are arguments both ways.

08-04-2008, 06:25 PM	#14 (permalink)
marcus Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 203	I think it is important we are part of a group and why not the ind/dem group - provided we are singing from the same hymm sheet. For our own credibility, I do think it looks alot better.

08-04-2008, 06:43 PM	#15 (permalink)
eublues Uber Member Join Date: Nov 2004 Posts: 3,189	On the Ind Dem site, the difference between UKIP and the other parties is made plain - i.e. that UKIP seeks withdrawal from the EU, whereas the other just want to protect the independence of action of individual states. On that basis I can't see any problem with UKIP being in this grouping.

08-04-2008, 09:11 PM	#17 (permalink)
Petrina Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: sussex Posts: 1,062	If Roger is going to be at all professional about the SW deciding on whether he is in or out of the group one can only hope that he will put a reasoned argument to them before they vote . We await it with interest

10-04-2008, 06:58 AM	#20 (permalink)
charlie endell Member Join Date: Oct 2007 Posts: 249	Knapman was in the UK on the day of the meeting, not Brussels.