UKIP Uncovered

UKIP Uncovered
What motivates the leaders of the United Kingdom Independence Party?

Sunday, September 26, 2004

Yet More Appalling Publicity for UKIP

As if the crazed rantings of Deputy Party Leader Nattrass were not enough, this morning Kilroy's choice of party researcher draws adverse comment in the Sunday Telegraph linked here. The article by Daniel Foggo is headlined:-

'The Prophet Mohammed was a paedophile, says Kilroy-Silk aide'

The harrowingly horrible comparison by Nattras of the British to Chechens, whose barbourous activities in a Russian school must still haunt the mind of anyone with the smallest element of humanity, was covered in yesterday's The Times which for once I repeat in full as the circumstances seem to demand:-

THE TIMES Britain
September 25, 2004

Britain 'is EU's Chechnya'
By Greg Hurst

THE deputy leader of the UK Independence Party has suggested that Europe¹s
proposed constitution could lead to civil war and likened opponents of the
European Union to Chechen separatists.

Mike Nattrass, an MEP for the West Midlands, said that Britain could be
prevented from ever leaving the European Union by other members under the
terms of the treaty. He asked if the only option left would be ³to fight our
way out². His comparison between British opponents of EU membership and
Chechen fighters came at a seminar in Cardiff on Thursday evening organised
by the Institute for Citizenship, an impartial charitable trust.

He argued that Article 1.59 of the treaty would allow voluntary withdrawal
of a member from the EU only if approved by a qualified majority of two
thirds in the Council of Ministers. If Britain wanted to withdraw but was
blocked from doing so, he asked, what options would be left and would it
mean fighting our way out, as Chechens were seeking to do in Russia?

When The Times asked Mr Nattras to clarify his remarks yesterday, he went
still further and suggested that such a scenario might mean civil war. He
said: ³What is the alternative? You are heading right into a civil war
situation. What are the British people supposed to do?²

=====================

Withdrawal
Article I-59:

1. Any Member State may decide to withdraw from the European Union in
accordance with its own constitutional requirements.

2. A Member State which decides to withdraw shall notify the European
Council of its intention; In the light of the guidelines provided by the
European Council, the Union shall negotiate and conclude an agreement
with that State, setting out the arrangements for its withdrawal, taking
account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union. That
agreement shall be negotiated in accordance with Article III-227(3); it
shall be concluded by the Council, acting by a qualified majority, after obtaining
the consent of the European Parliament.

3. This Constitution shall cease to apply to the State in question from the
date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two
years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European
Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides
to extend this period.

The above clause is all the evidence one needs to make the new EU Constitutional Treaty totally unacceptable. If accepted by Britain, ratified and entered into effect we would indeed be effectively locked within the EU and subject to no doubt horrendous penalties if ever deirous of withdrawing.

Mr Nattrass is, however, of a generation (and with reported past connections) that must make him fully aware that a far better analogy to this country's situation would be Ian Smith's Rhodesia at the time of its Unilateral Declaration of Independence - itself an unhappy enough comparison.

posted by Martin |9:30 AM