Wednesday, 28 May 2014

Cameron Tries To Block UKIP Funding

Mary Ellon Synon reports that "Cameron is trying to sabotage UKIP’s influence at the European Parliament, just days after trying to appear sympathetic to euroscepticism by telling the British people that their message at the polls was “received and understood.”
Instead of accepting UKIP's victory, Cameron has started a drive to cut off the legs of “the people’s army” in Brussels and Strasbourg. He has assigned Conservative Party fixers to do deals with hard-right and populist parties which, until now, the Conservatives claimed were “unacceptable.”
Conservative moves which have the full support of 'Judas Goat' Hannan:
Last week Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan was in Denmark telling Copenhagen television that the Danish People’s Party (DPP), which sat with UKIP’s group in the outgoing parliament, would now be welcome to join in the Tories’ Europe group at the European parliament.
But in 2009, Conservatives rejected an approach from the DPP to join their group, “because of their unacceptable views in a number of areas.” Thus far from listening to the British people we have yet another example - which undoubtedly comes as a large shock to everyone - of the complete contempt held by those in Westminster have of UK voters. Farage has it right when he says:
There is a big dissident voice now in this parliament. And yet, I just sat in a meeting where you wouldn’t think that anything happened at all.
It does though neatly illustrate a number of intriguing observations. That the EU Parliament is used by UK parties (and other countries) to try to manipulate domestic audiences politically. Cameron is willing to align himself with "undesirables" in order to try to shore up his election chances at home - by depriving UKIP of money - regardless of reputations. He accurately calculates that most in the UK couldn't care less about the EU Parliament and how it works.

It also demonstrates that the very understandable desire to give the main three parties a "kicking" in the Euro elections by UK voters is one that has been shown to be largely impotent, a sentiment that is echoed by Farage himself.

The EU Parliament via groupings and the use of money ensures that it is just another EU institution whose primary function is to facilitate the further progress of the supranational project rather than be an independent "check and balance" on the executive or other bodies:
For example, in the 2012 budget, UKIP and the MEPs from ten other countries in the Europe of Freedom and Democracy group, had an allocation of more than €2.5m, with €881,000 still in the bank carried over from the previous year’s grant. This was on top of all the expenses individual MEPs were given to run their offices, research and travel.

By contrast, the giant pro-EU powers European People’s Party (EPP)...was allocated €21m.
Is it little wonder that the EU are so lax about expenses allowances; there is nothing better than easy money to turn people "native". Then there's the European Court of Justice, who rather than be an independent judiciary has instead the primary role of extending and reinforcing the supranational authority of the EU Commission, its "coup d'etat" was this judgement from 1964 :
It follows from all these observations that the law stemming from the treaty, an independent source of law, could not, because of its special and original nature, be overridden by domestic legal provisions, however framed, without being deprived of its character as community law and without the legal basis of the community itself being called into question.

The transfer by the States from their domestic legal system to the Community ... Treaty carries with it a permanent limitation of their sovereign rights, against which a subsequent unilateral act incompatible with the concept of the Community cannot prevail.
Obviously it's clear that UK exit is not going to materialise from Brussels or MEPs contained within nor indeed many members of Westminster. Our exit is likely to come via a referendum and to win that requires negating many of the lies, deception and FUD that has characterised over 40 years of membership. To do that requires a proper, well thought-out exit plan:

It's interesting that despite Cameron's continuing deception on the EU, in terms of how it works regarding treaties he appears to be pretty naive - in fact he's made a substantial strategical cock-up.

Cameron gave a promise of a referendum in 2017 after claiming that he would negotiate reforms with the EU. As has been well noted on many occasions such reforms cannot be done without approval of other member states nor without Treaty change nor within the time frame.

Cameron then said on Andrew Marr that a referendum would be held anyway in 2017:

Essentially this means that any referendum in 2017 won't be based on a fudged reform (because there isn't time) but instead it will be a straight in/out. Here we have a fighting chance. But it is only one chance and one chance only. To win needs co-operation and planning among eurosceptic groups to ensure victory. Without that we lose.

Rather like Neil Armstrong et al going to the moon, they either got it right or they died. There were no second chances.


  1. Caneron's reaction seems to support the view that having a large number of UKIP MEPS will have some impact on things.

    1. The (initial) reasons for sending UKIP MEPs was always to learn how the EU worked and to bring in much needed funds, so in that I would have agreed.

      However funds have either been squandered or misused - there has been plenty of corruption in the upper echelons of the party, including Farage employing both his mistress and his wife against party policy of employing family members. The lack of an EU exit plan, or indeed any policies, as well as a poor website shows money is being squandered.

      Thus in my view the only impact shown by Cameron is to deprive certain MEPs from fully exploiting the system for their own gains.

  2. Surely UKIP has more clout given they have more MEP's than Camoron ? Just asking .

    1. I read a good explanation on Facebook the other day, part of which puts things into pespective:

      "The Conservatives set up their own group some time ago, and the larger they can make it, the more money and resources they will get from EU funds. The Conservative courting of somewhat moderate groups is a political ploy to leave UKIP scrabbling around doing deals with the most marginal and extreme anti-EU groups. That enables them to paint UKIP as allying with race baiters, people who want to jail homosexuals, etc."

  3. It's about money and access to information and committees and the rights to speak in the EP. I forget what the rules are exactly, but it's something like a group has to consist of at least 27 MEPs from at least 7 different member states.

    Now, when it comes to groups outside the main social democratic ones, one lot won't sit with another lot because they are racist or homophobic, or socialist, or capitalist, or pro-abortion or anti-abortion, or anti- or pro whatever. e.g. UKIP is saying it won't sit with Le Pen's lot.

    Cameron had his arm twisted to have the Tories leave the EPP, which is one of the larger groupings and the Tories were comfortable in, despite its federalist intent and their declared eurosceptic position. It was about the only bankable promise he made to eurosceptic Tories.

    If I recall correctly, they dragged their heels on this and it caused some division amongst Tory MEPs, but eventually they found a new home. There was also something about Tory MEPs in the EP pushing for the new and more restrictive rules on groups in the first place.

    Clout in the EP is a dubious concept, especially outside the main federalist groups.

    The Tories in particular have tried to make much of UKIP's association with undesirable extreme parties in the past. In my view, Cameron is making a big mistake here, appearing spiteful and hypocritical for a dubious gain.

    1. "In my view, Cameron is making a big mistake here, appearing spiteful and hypocritical for a dubious gain."

      Yes, completely agree...

    2. He just doesn't know how to deal with UKIP.

      Way back when, about the time the Tories being part of the EPP was topical, he came out with the fruitcakes line, insulting a fair proportion of his natural supporters who were broadly sympathetic, if not motivated to vote for UKIP.

      A wiser man might have ignored UKIP or said they were sincere but misguided. Raise a cheer from your pals on the dinner party circuit and lose tens of thousands of votes, plus draw attention to UKIP.

      A cracker, but just about the measure of the man.

  4. Is there anything this person will stop at? Doubt it.

  5. I spoke to a Danish friend about the Danish People's Party some months ago.

    What he said was that they are quite nationalistic and anti-Islam, but very, very social democratic and pro-tax and spend economically. They're almost like a pre-political correctness left-wing party. DF don't specifically advocate withdrawal from the EU although Morten Messerschmidt, one of their MEPs certainly is for withdrawal.