More on UKIP to EUKIP

A note on Nigel 2004 and Nigel 2011



Nigel Farage on ‘political parties at the European level’

Sharply conflicting views have been expressed in the UK Independence Party’s debate on whether it should become associated with ‘a political party at the European level’. (A ‘political party at the European level’ is also known as ‘a pan-European political party’ or PEPP.) The purpose of this e-mail is not to rehash the main points of the debate, but to bring attention to two statements from Nigel Farage, the current leader of the UK Independence Party. The first (Nigel 2004) was made over seven years ago in early 2004 and the other (Nigel 2011) in the latest issue of the UKIP magazine, Independence. The statements are attached in two files in PDF format. The words are all Nigel Farage’s; I am not making anything up.

Nigel 2004 was opposed to the state funding of political parties in general and to the ‘European Union funding of political parties’ more specifically. By contrast, Nigel 2011 asked party members to vote in favour of taking that part of EU-funded PEPP money to which the UK Independence Party might – through its representation in the European Parliament – be entitled. In other words, Nigel 2004 was against the introduction of PEPPs as a concept, whereas Nigel 2011 is in favour of UKIP accepting EU money for UKIP, even though that money would arise only because UKIP had become associated with a PEPP.

In brief, Nigel Farage in 2004 was against the PEPP idea, but now he is in favour. This is an important change of view, which needs to be analysed.



Nigel 2004

I am going to start with Nigel 2004. The 2004 statement strikes me as impressive and admirable in its own terms, as well as expressing an attractive set of political beliefs. I agree wholeheartedly with every word. The statement arose from a legal action, organized with support from MEPs across Europe, against EU funding of political parties, which was then at an early stage. In my view, Nigel 2004 contained three main arguments.

First, Nigel 2004 was ‘opposed on principle’ (my italics) to ‘state funding of political parties’ as it was ‘not an appropriate use of taxpayers’ money’. Indeed, there appeared in his view to be no ‘evidence that suggests...the voters in my country... are happy for their money directly to finance political parties at the European level’. Farage’s perception was that ‘far too much money’ was ‘already being spent on political projects...most certainly here in Strasbourg’.

Secondly, Nigel 2004 seemed to have few illusions about the EU. In his assessment the purpose of PEPPs was ‘to discriminate against certain political parties’, meaning by implication certainly the UK Independence Party and perhaps a few others. As he recognised, recipients of EU money would be ‘required’ to subscribe to ‘pre-set political ideals, such as agreement with greater European integration’. (UKIP existed of course not just to stop the further integration of Europe, but to achieve the withdrawal of the UK from the EU.)

Thirdly, Nigel 2004 was concerned that one condition of taking EU money would be acceptance of EU so-called ‘democratic principles’, including ‘the rule of law’. This might sound ‘fine’, ‘but’ – in Farage’s words – ‘we are seeing shifts and changes in the law’. The danger was that dissident parties might be ‘not just denied funding, but possibly even banned’. Although that was a danger, he believed that it would not be ‘legitimate’ for a British Government to sign up for a constitution which included such an attack on democracy and freedom. The conclusion was that – although UKIP might in the circumstances under discussion ultimately be ‘banned’ – Farage would be ‘perfectly happy [for UKIP] not to qualify for this funding’. (I have inserted ‘for UKIP’ here. That is clearly what is meant.)

As I said, Nigel Farage’s position on the PEPP issue in 2004 was – in my view – impressive and admirable. The world would be a better place if all politicians could show that degree of idealism, principle and grit.



Nigel 2011

But Nigel 2011 is not on the same wavelength. His latest piece starts by claiming that the current debate is ‘effectively the same as we had in 1998’, which was about whether UKIP should participate in European elections and send MEPs to Brussels/Strasbourg. Well, it is not the same debate at all. A political party’s participation in elections in its own country (the 1998 debate) is clearly not the same thing as an association between its parliamentary representatives and the parliamentary representatives from other countries, and between a political party in one country and political parties in other countries (the 2011 debate).

The true forerunner of the current debate was the 2004 legal action, which I have just discussed. UKIP’s position was decided on the National Executive Committee which Farage attended. Indeed, Farage refers later in the Independence article to the ‘court case’ he fought ‘against huge sums of money – taxpayers’ money – being made available to support these [i.e., the mainstream, pro-EU] parties’. He accepts that ‘he lost’. But, whereas in 2004 he was ‘happy’ not to qualify for tainted money from an undemocratic institution, he evidently no longer feels that his 2004 position is worth defending. Instead of the subject being one ‘of principle’ (my italics again), the latest thinking is that ‘in life you need to play with the hand you are dealt’. Indeed, the argument has become entirely one about money. To quote, ‘If we do not access some of this money, the whole sum will go to the pro-EU side.’ As the jam pot is finite, let’s make sure we – UKIP’s MEPs – have as much of the jam as we can get. Once again, ‘huge sums’ are mentioned. But now the context is not the squandering of taxpayers’ money, but the supposed availability to UKIP of EU funds.

In fact, as I and many other people have pointed out, there is much doubt about the availability of any money to UKIP as such, were its MEPs to become associated with a PEPP. The relevant EU regulations make clear that no PEPP money may be used by national political parties for national political activity. Instead – as the PEPP proposal stands today – UKIP’s participation in a PEPP would have the effect of adding roughly £20,000 - £25,000 to MEPs’ expenses allowances. The extra money could be spent only for the purposes of the pan-European party (not UKIP) and such expenditure would be regulated by the European Parliament.

And that’s all, as far as UKIP as it now exists is concerned. (There would also be some money for a think-tank, perhaps located in London, but more probably in Brussels or another city on the Continent, and – in my view – it would be invisible and irrelevant to the average UKIP member.) Whether an extra £20,000 or so on MEP expenses amounts to ‘a huge sum’ is a matter of opinion. In my view, the new dosh would be chickenfeed relative to the wider political debates in which the UK Independence Party is involved. Does anyone seriously believe that our country’s independence can be restored by the EU – the EU, for heaven’s sake – adding a bit more than £20,000 to the allowances of UKIP’s MEPs, when the money can be spent – to repeat – only for the purposes of a foreign political grouping (i.e., a PEPP) and such expenditure must be regulated by a foreign legislature (i.e., the European Parliament).



Nigel 2004 and Nigel 2011: which Nigel should we support?

In politics party unity is at a premium. Divided parties tend to lose elections. The voters do not know what a divided party stands for; they cannot support a party that, because it has conflicting policies, does not seem to be sure what it believes in. So members of the UK Independence Party must at present support Nigel Farage. As I have often said, he has great gifts as a public speaker. He is also undoubtedly very effective in delivering sound-bites on the media, an important skill in today’s world of almost universal attention-deficit-disorder.

But party members who joined in 2004 or before are entitled to ask which Nigel Farage they are to follow. Should it be Nigel 2004 or Nigel 2011? As this note has shown, Nigel 2004 and Nigel 2011 are very different people. For myself I have little difficulty in supporting Nigel 2004. However, I am much less enthusiastic about Nigel 2011. Someone once said, ‘a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds’. Ok, but we hobgoblins of little minds should be free to express our opinions when the inconsistency becomes too blatant.


Tim Congdon

26th July, 2011