SomersetYokel

This is a good debate that is getting to the heart of our problems.

The only way we can get out of the EU is by House of Commons repealing the 1973 European Act.

In the impossible situation that a majority of MEPs voted in Strasbourg for the UK to be kicked out of the EU it would make no difference. We would still be in the EU.

The conclusion: it is a waste of time electing MEPs and we should devote our energies to building up UK support to leave the EU that is reflected in parliamentary seats. We would not need an overall majority. The balance of power would be sufficient - realistically a minimum of 50 seats.

Charlemagne

But how would the MEPs continue to live in the lifestyle to which they've been accustomed? You surely can't expect them to take a pay cut just so the UK can get out of Europe.

Nyge21

It was a good debate, however Charlemagne has joining in!!!!!

Osric

Yes, quite right.

With that in mind, how best to ensure UKIP becomes stronger?
Personally I would think building up your local branches offer the best bet, but there seems to a problem with "Petty kingdoms" in UKIP.

Nyge21

Having UKIP MEP's was I thought a strategy to bringing in more funds and more coverage in the media for the party - which would in turn assist with Local and General election campaigns. It was never a case of achieving the goal of leaving the EU simply by having MEP's alone.
Following the 2004 european elections, UKIP gained 12 MEP's which should have meant the coffers for future election campaigns were considerable - a marked improvement on pre-2004 campaigns. It seems we have a Gordon Brown situation - the cupboard is empty - it has been left empty, when 3 MEP's left the party and a further 9 failed to contribute £30 000 per year for 4 years, a small proportion out of their extortionate "allowances" and "salary" they get as OUR MEP's

Just counting the 9 MEP's - that would have been (from 2004 till now) 4 x 30000 x 9 = £1.08 million for election campaigns alone.
With that, other big donors would have been more willing to take UKIP seriously, and added to the total.

------------------------------------------------------------
General Elections cost money - and money spent wisely = votes

Jeff

Has Farage started to contribute to the party yet?

I understand he of all of them has never given to the party.

Anyone who can show that this is not so should post such informaton here I reckon.

I can honestly say that I have made some contributions when I was a member of UKIP.

__________________
My new party is the Free England Party,join us.

Osric

I seem to recall reading somewhere that many people within UKIP argued against standing in the EU elections. They believed UKIP would not benefit from the MEPs, and it seems they were right.

It would be better if it were the other way around, especially since your statement is potentially libellous.

SponPlague

This goes back to the first days of the party: Dr. Alan Sked, the founder and first leader, felt UKIP should stand but not take seats if elected; Nigel countered that people on doorsteps were saying they wouldn't give votes to someone who wouldn't take up their seats. The Nigel faction won...

Millennium3

When GlobalVision did their survey they found, roughly, that 25% wanted to leave the EU, but a further 50% wanted to cut political and economic ties [presumably wanted to remain in the trade zone]. If UKIP's aim were the latter it would, at least, have a realistic hope for success should they manage to force a referendum through holding the balance of power in a hung Parliament.

In my opinion, this requires the party to focus fully on domestic politics - stand at the EU elections by all means, but use any success simply as a way to obtain funds - as has been suggested.

SomersetYokel

It would reassure the ordinary members if all UKIP MEPs all posted om the UKIP official web site a statement of how much they had given to the party in the last tax year, certified by the party accountant. Then we would know who was putting their money where their mouth was.