THE STRASBOURG SET
Recently the UK Independence Party [UKIP], which purports to be opposed to the UK’s continued membership of the EU, has found itself in the news for little more than continuing in its own fractious way.
Initially there was the resignation on the eve of the national conference and AGM of the party chairman, Petrina Holdsworth, who had got into a spat with one of the party’s Strasbourg Set, Michael Nattrass MEP.
The row started with the following exchange of emails:
Subsequently, Petrina Holdsworth demanded an apology. When she did not get one, she resigned, then rescinded her resignation on receipt of a letter from UKIP’s other MEPs [but not including Mike Nattrass] and on the understanding that Mike Nattrass would be removed as deputy leader.
When it became apparent that she had been duped by UKIP’s leader, Roger Knapman, concerning the removal of Mike Nattrass, Petrina Holdsworth re-resigned.
What is puzzling is why a small comment from Petrina Holdsworth about the effectiveness of the MEPs’ employees, a long-term problem in UKIP, should have provoked such an expletive riddled response from Mike Nattrass?
Those pondering this question then had a further nugget of information to contend with. Apparently, Tom Wise, a UKIP MEP for the Eastern region, has been less than accurate in claiming monies from the EU for employees, and had flagrantly breached the EU’s own rules.
Firstly, Mr Wise had breached the rule that payments to employees must be made directly to the employees or a third party ‘service provider’ and not to the MEPs themselves.
In fact the money for Mr Wise’s employees had been paid into an account in the name of Stags. Mr Wise now admits that he had invoiced the EU for the employees using the term ‘Tom Wise trading as Stags’ - ie the money was in fact being paid to him.
Secondly, it transpires that Mr Wise had been claiming £3,000 per month from the EU for the employment of Lindsay Jenkins as a researcher, when in fact he was only paying her £500 per month, although he had also paid her a further £4,000. The balance of the money, £2,500 per month, which currently amounts to £21,000, was quietly building up in the Stags account [ie in Mr Wise’s account].
In submitting the relevant form to the EU, Mr Wise had had Lindsay Jenkins fill the form in, but she had not put in the amount of the payments and was therefore unaware of how much money was being paid to Mr Wise as a result of her employment. Mr Wise had himself subsequently filled in the part of the form regarding the amount of the payments.
It is understood that Mr Wise has now undertaken to repay the EU the amount of the overpayment. This is hardly the scenario those activists in UKIP had in mind when they campaigned for UKIP in the 2004 EU elections.
One cannot but wonder what the other paragons of virtue are up to? In addition to their own salaries, the UKIP MEPs collectively receive in excess of £1million per annum for their employees and there are further allowances on top.
UKIP has proved itself ineffective in its campaigning. Its vote has collapsed compared to its performance in 2004 and Nigel Farage was positively singing Tony Blair’s praises when Mr Blair made his speech to the EU parliament back in June [see English Rights Campaign item dated the 27 June 2005]. Mr Farage said:
‘If you can reform the European Union, Mr Blair, then I may even change my mind, I may even think it’s worth us staying a member.’
Mr Farage further hailed Mr Blair as being ‘the only European leader who understands why France and Holland voted no’ to the EU constitution!
This was at a critical time when it was vital that EU realists opposed Labour and vital that the UK be allowed a referendum on the EU constitution, which is now being quietly implemented by the back door. Mr Farage could not possibly have helped Mr Blair more.
UKIP has completely abandoned its principles and has gone native. It is supporting Labour.
Mike Nattrass complains about being ‘expected to attend Parliament, make speeches at 10pm’, but he is playing the EU game. He is being a good MEP. That is not the purported purpose of UKIP. That is not why people voted for them in 2004.
Fortunately, UKIP does not have a monopoly on EU realism. The English Democrats Party [EDP] also wishes to get the UK out of the clutches of the EU and also advocates withdrawal.
Since the EDP is not a single EU issue party, and since it is primarily concerned with the governance of England and hence opposes membership of the EU from that standpoint, its MEPs are most unlikely to go native. The EDP is more concerned about winning seats in the Westminster parliament.
In 2009, when there will probably be a general election as well as the next EU elections, UKIP and its Strasbourg Set will be consigned to the dustbin of history. And not before time.
Initially there was the resignation on the eve of the national conference and AGM of the party chairman, Petrina Holdsworth, who had got into a spat with one of the party’s Strasbourg Set, Michael Nattrass MEP.
The row started with the following exchange of emails:
‘September 26
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: UKIP MEPs and members of the National Executive Committee
"At the moment we have an awful lot of people employed by MEPs over here and I'm not sure that all of them are fully utilised."
September 28
From: Mike Nattrass
To: Petrina Holdsworth
"Petrina, when you take your swipes at MEPs you should first understand what you are saying. You suffer from a blind ignorance of the facts and refuse to understand even when your nose is pushed in it. We are expected to attend Parliament, make speeches at 10pm, leave our businesses and families to fly backwards and forwards for UKIP and then look forward to a load of crap from a chairman who does not even try to understand."
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: Mike Nattrass
"This sort of reply is not helpful, it is just plain rude. If you are incapable of keeping a civil tongue in your head you should keep quiet."
From: Mike Nattrass
To: Petrina Holdsworth
"You are the rude one. To send a message of effective 'no confidence' in the way MEPs employ their staff and copied to the NEC is BLOODY RUDE and DESERVES A RUDE REPLY."
From: Petrina Holdsworth
To: Mike Nattrass
"Mike, there seems little point in continuing this exchange." ‘
Subsequently, Petrina Holdsworth demanded an apology. When she did not get one, she resigned, then rescinded her resignation on receipt of a letter from UKIP’s other MEPs [but not including Mike Nattrass] and on the understanding that Mike Nattrass would be removed as deputy leader.
When it became apparent that she had been duped by UKIP’s leader, Roger Knapman, concerning the removal of Mike Nattrass, Petrina Holdsworth re-resigned.
What is puzzling is why a small comment from Petrina Holdsworth about the effectiveness of the MEPs’ employees, a long-term problem in UKIP, should have provoked such an expletive riddled response from Mike Nattrass?
Those pondering this question then had a further nugget of information to contend with. Apparently, Tom Wise, a UKIP MEP for the Eastern region, has been less than accurate in claiming monies from the EU for employees, and had flagrantly breached the EU’s own rules.
Firstly, Mr Wise had breached the rule that payments to employees must be made directly to the employees or a third party ‘service provider’ and not to the MEPs themselves.
In fact the money for Mr Wise’s employees had been paid into an account in the name of Stags. Mr Wise now admits that he had invoiced the EU for the employees using the term ‘Tom Wise trading as Stags’ - ie the money was in fact being paid to him.
Secondly, it transpires that Mr Wise had been claiming £3,000 per month from the EU for the employment of Lindsay Jenkins as a researcher, when in fact he was only paying her £500 per month, although he had also paid her a further £4,000. The balance of the money, £2,500 per month, which currently amounts to £21,000, was quietly building up in the Stags account [ie in Mr Wise’s account].
In submitting the relevant form to the EU, Mr Wise had had Lindsay Jenkins fill the form in, but she had not put in the amount of the payments and was therefore unaware of how much money was being paid to Mr Wise as a result of her employment. Mr Wise had himself subsequently filled in the part of the form regarding the amount of the payments.
It is understood that Mr Wise has now undertaken to repay the EU the amount of the overpayment. This is hardly the scenario those activists in UKIP had in mind when they campaigned for UKIP in the 2004 EU elections.
One cannot but wonder what the other paragons of virtue are up to? In addition to their own salaries, the UKIP MEPs collectively receive in excess of £1million per annum for their employees and there are further allowances on top.
UKIP has proved itself ineffective in its campaigning. Its vote has collapsed compared to its performance in 2004 and Nigel Farage was positively singing Tony Blair’s praises when Mr Blair made his speech to the EU parliament back in June [see English Rights Campaign item dated the 27 June 2005]. Mr Farage said:
‘If you can reform the European Union, Mr Blair, then I may even change my mind, I may even think it’s worth us staying a member.’
Mr Farage further hailed Mr Blair as being ‘the only European leader who understands why France and Holland voted no’ to the EU constitution!
This was at a critical time when it was vital that EU realists opposed Labour and vital that the UK be allowed a referendum on the EU constitution, which is now being quietly implemented by the back door. Mr Farage could not possibly have helped Mr Blair more.
UKIP has completely abandoned its principles and has gone native. It is supporting Labour.
Mike Nattrass complains about being ‘expected to attend Parliament, make speeches at 10pm’, but he is playing the EU game. He is being a good MEP. That is not the purported purpose of UKIP. That is not why people voted for them in 2004.
Fortunately, UKIP does not have a monopoly on EU realism. The English Democrats Party [EDP] also wishes to get the UK out of the clutches of the EU and also advocates withdrawal.
Since the EDP is not a single EU issue party, and since it is primarily concerned with the governance of England and hence opposes membership of the EU from that standpoint, its MEPs are most unlikely to go native. The EDP is more concerned about winning seats in the Westminster parliament.
In 2009, when there will probably be a general election as well as the next EU elections, UKIP and its Strasbourg Set will be consigned to the dustbin of history. And not before time.
posted by erc @ 8:25 pm
<< Home