British Democracy Forum - View Single Post

progcon.org · 02-08-2008, 12:37 PM

Should an anti-eu party's existence depend on EU funding?

I have found it very uncomfortable reading here recently as various MEP wannabes detail how they will spend their time promoting the ukip cause in the uk etc if elected when all that means is that they are seeking the EU, the very body they detest to fund their mission.

I am not going to be too cynical and say they are simply seeking to get their snouts in a nice 5-year trough, but even with the best of intentions, they are dependent on that trough to survive.

UKIP having MEP's was always going to be a difficult tightrope, and I believe it has failed.

Nigel is a star. He makes cracking speeches, makes the the euphiles feel uncomfortable, but what real impact has it made in terms of slowing down or preventing the ultimate U.S.E. aim?

Why does UKIP need more MEP's to continue the mission of exposing the EU? Why is so much passion displayed in the contest to become an MEP but little to become an MP?

Clearly, UKIP has more chance of getting MEP's elected, but is that in any way a reason to do so? I really do not even buy the idea that it is better to have eusceptic MEP's elected if it reduces the number of euphiles, as we have already established that we want to leave, and we don't need MEP's to gain full info of what is going on there.

If UKIP cannot survive without EU funding, does it have any right to survive at all?

02-08-2008, 12:37 PM	#1 (permalink)
progcon.org Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Posts: 934	Should UKIP abort its MEP strategy? Should an anti-eu party's existence depend on EU funding? I have found it very uncomfortable reading here recently as various MEP wannabes detail how they will spend their time promoting the ukip cause in the uk etc if elected when all that means is that they are seeking the EU, the very body they detest to fund their mission. I am not going to be too cynical and say they are simply seeking to get their snouts in a nice 5-year trough, but even with the best of intentions, they are dependent on that trough to survive. UKIP having MEP's was always going to be a difficult tightrope, and I believe it has failed. Nigel is a star. He makes cracking speeches, makes the the euphiles feel uncomfortable, but what real impact has it made in terms of slowing down or preventing the ultimate U.S.E. aim? Why does UKIP need more MEP's to continue the mission of exposing the EU? Why is so much passion displayed in the contest to become an MEP but little to become an MP? Clearly, UKIP has more chance of getting MEP's elected, but is that in any way a reason to do so? I really do not even buy the idea that it is better to have eusceptic MEP's elected if it reduces the number of euphiles, as we have already established that we want to leave, and we don't need MEP's to gain full info of what is going on there. If UKIP cannot survive without EU funding, does it have any right to survive at all? Last edited by progcon.org; 02-08-2008 at 12:39 PM.