· UKIP Candidate in Stockton North received vile letter from current Labour MP
· Accuses the Jewish mother of two of supporting anti-semitism, racism and violent misogyny
The UKIP Parliamentary Candidate for Stockton North, Mandy Boylett, has received a threatening letter from current Labour MP for Stockton North, Alex Cunningham, in which he insinuates he plans to smear her campaign with accusations of supporting anti-semitic and extreme views.
Mrs Boylett, a Jewish mother of two whose own father was a German refugee fleeing the Holocaust during World War II, says she is shocked and deeply disturbed by the actions of the MP, whose vile letter she received earlier this week.
In the letter, Alex Cunningham states that UKIP has joined forces with the Polish Congress of the New Right Party in the European Union, a matter that is totally untrue and has been very publically condemned by UKIP following an attempted smear by political opponents. The Party’s leader Janusz Korwin-Mikke, to whom Alex Cunningham attributes a selection of extreme views, is an MEP but not a member of the group in which UKIP sits, the EFDD – which demonstrates that the accusation is totally perverse.
The MP goes on to tell the candidate that in standing for UKIP she ‘will publicly defend Mr Janusz Korwin-Mikke’s comments with regard to “n*****s”, Hitler and rape’
“I felt so intimidated and so personally offended by his letter. I simply cannot believe a current MP would resort to this level of behaviour against another electoral candidate. The fact that the Labour Party are using a borderline blackmail smear attempt to threaten another candidate shows just what depths these people are willing to stoop to.
“I am Jewish woman, a mother and a staunch believer in democracy. We know that the very nature of the European Parliament means that there are many unsavoury characters within the four walls. The Labour Party know this very well after organising a summer camp for junior members with the Party of European Socialists where gay delegates were threatened with violence. It’s a very good reason why we need to get Britain out of that institution.
“But for an MP to get his facts so grossly wrong, or worse still, deliberately twist reality to attack a candidate from another party like this, frankly you have to question whether he is fit for office.
“I am really, really hurt but it has resolved me to work even harder to get this sort of self-serving, cruel-natured character out of British politics. This is no way for a politician to behave.”
Nick Clegg has called for the replacement of outdated trains in our region. He says he wants “significant improvement” and calls them “ancient,” “decrepit” and “unfit.” This was all very commendable, until he showed his true colours and revealed his blatant electioneering.
Clegg wants to see these “ancient” and “unfit” trains replaced by 2025. 2025? If this does not show how out of touch the London elite are, then I do not know what will. Many of these trains are falling apart here in 2014 never mind 2025. Why do the Lib Dems want to leave us with “ancient” and “decrepit” trains for another 10 years? Is this the “Northern Future” Mr Clegg has planned? More of the same?
Mr Clegg has had 4 and a half years in power, I find it interesting that he has waited until he’s about to get kicked out of office to propose doing anything to fix this very long running problem. It is rather suspicious that in the run up to the election he has suddenly noticed this crippling infrastructure weakness.
Jonathan Arnott MEP
UKIP, North East
There has been much discussion generated by the UCL immigration study. UKIP have never said that immigration is simply a drain on our benefit system. Many immigrants have a very positive effect on our society and economy and this has been the case for hundreds of years; it has no relation to the EU. We are the only party proposing an Australian style points-based immigration system that will accentuate the benefits to Britain while reducing any negative impact.
This study doesn’t show what wealth our people could have generated if they weren’t subjected to wage-reducing, employment-displacing mass immigration from the EU. Nor does it truly take into account the opportunity costs to the UK of substituting sections of Britain’s workforce with migrant labour.
If governments had spent as much time developing policies aimed at reducing the growth of the UK’s economic underclass as they did bowing to the will of Europe, immigration would not be the number one issue on today’s doorstep.
I am alarmed how the methodology of the report pits EU migrants against immigrants from the wider world. I disagree with the discrimination of our current system which favours Europeans over people from the rest of the globe. A fair and ethical immigration policy should be based on merit and need – not race and which country you were born in.
UKIP merely want us to control our borders and have an immigration policy tailored to suit the needs of the British people and our economy.
Jonathan Arnott MEP
UKIP, North East
UKIP MEP and member of European Parliament Budget Control Committee, Jonathan Arnott today said:
“The auditors’ report shows that last year’s massive increase in errors and fraud in the EU budget was no one-off but part of a systemic failure.
We’ve got multinationals claiming small business relief, farms claiming buildings as grazing land and officials pocketing 5 times the going rate for their jobs.
The EU’s budget is now riddled with an error rate of almost 5%. That’s three times as much money as the UK is being expected to hand over to the EU on December 1st.
Any small business acting in such a manner would be closed down, but apologists for the EU look the other way when confronted with the evidence of mismanagement and fraud.”
For the 19th year in a row, the EU’s Court of Auditors has refused to give a clean bill of health to the EU’s accounts for the year ending 31st December 2013. The EU’s Court of Auditors registered an ‘adverse opinion’ about the legality and regularity of EU payments, blasting them as being “materially affected by error” – with almost €7 billion being paid out improperly.
With multinationals claiming small business relief, farms claiming buildings as grazing land and officials pocketing 5 times the going rate for their jobs, I wonder whether people realise just how bad the situation is in terms of mismanagement of the EU’s funds – at a time when Britain is being asked to hand over an additional €2.1 billion to the European Union within weeks?
The official error rate is 4.7% for 2013 (with rural development and regional policy completely out of control at almost 7%), roughly holding steady after a huge increase the previous year. In actual fact, errors are higher – around 6.3% of the budget – but 1.6% had been rectified. At today’s Budgetary Control Committee meeting in the European Parliament, I was handed a copy of a monster 319-page report. It was the Court of Auditors’ annual report on the financial year 2013 – available online athttp://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/AR13/AR13_EN.pdf
So far I’ve picked out just a few of the most shocking pieces of information from that document. Bear in mind that these (and 14 further cases of fraud) have been found in a small sample of all EU projects:
EU money spent on IT equipment in Africa was claimed to have been given to the lowest bidder, but that just wasn’t true. The Commission’s auditor didn’t even spot the problem. (p206)
2. A legal training firm claimed using incorrect hourly rates, claiming subcontracting costs as though they were regular employees, and declaring costs for periods of time that weren’t part of the project. More than a quarter of such projects had illegible costs. (p221)
3. The Commission signed a contract for a French legal expert, who was paid 98,000 euros for advisory service in Tunisia, in breach of the financial regulations. (p207)
4. The Commission accepted millions of foreign aid expenditure to Moldova which hadn’t actually been incurred. (p207)
5. In Romania officials were paid 5 times the usual salary, but no action was taken because the rules were unclear. (p185)
6. Illegal awards were made under the Regional development fund in Germany and 5 other countries. (p148)
7. In Latvia the body responsible for checking that EU aid is genuine itself claimed €2 million in ineligible aid (p118).
8. In Poland, a farmer was given payments for early retirement support despite being of pension age (p114).
- Multinational companies in Portugal claimed €500,000 of EU aid aimed at small businesses. Similar problems were found in FIFTEEN other countries (p112; p25, EU Audit in Brief).
10. An Italian company was paid not to use harmful plant protection products, but it used them at least twelve times. (p112)
11. In 10,000 cases in Italy aid was granted for land which was excluded from such aid (p89).
- In Ireland, farms claimed subsidies for grazing land. Some so-called ‘grazing land’ had buildings and roads built on it, and couldn’t possibly be used for grazing. This was found in four out of the six farms randomly surveyed (p88).
In Greece and 5 other countries land covered in trees, shrubs and bushes was claimed as grassland (p84).
14. Errors in French and British trade with Germany have been simply ignored for 15 months (p64).
15. In Holland, 90% of monies involved in fraudulent activity in textile imports haven’t been reclaimed (p63).
Defenders of the European Union usually point to the fact that a lot of money is spent in the member states, and say that it’s the member states’ responsibility to police the problem. They act as though the Commission is a blameless victim of national governments’ incompetence.
Well that was certainly true today! Speaker after speaker on the Committee lambasted national governments for not doing more. They’re probably right that national governments don’t police EU funding well enough, but it’s also fair to say that they’re the ones bearing the brunt of having to interpret complex EU rules.
But the Commission also routinely ignores instructions from the Court of Auditors. For example (p70), the Court of Auditors criticised them for ignoring last year’s recommendations for improvement. The Commission declined to even comment. In fact 21% of all of the Court of Auditors’ recommendations (p17, EU Audit in Brief) were completely ignored by the Commission, and many others were only partly implemented.
But whilst they’re aiming their bullets at national governments, is the record of the European Union itself really okay – or are they just seeking to deflect criticism? For projects directly administered by the Commission, the error rate is still 3.7%. Yes, it’s a tiny bit lower than the overall error rate but that’s to be expected because there’s one less tier of administration. So when the pro-EU lobby blames member states, they’re doing nothing more than using it as a way to muddy the waters. The fact is that the system itself is broken and unreformable. There’s even a 1% error rate within the EU’s own expenditure.
The EU’s budget will always be mismanaged; the system and procedures are so complex that they are open to large-scale abuse and fraud. Far better, surely, not to send money to Brussels in the first place and then apply to receive a small portion of that money back with strings attached? We want to be good neighbours with Europe and to trade freely with Europe, but outside the EU trading freely with the globe. European government does not work, will not work and can never work.
An EU Commission chief’s comments stating that there is ‘no discretion’ on the EU’s £1.7bn surcharge and ‘no discretion either not to apply the penalty interests’ shows that Cameron’s pledge not to pay a sum is ‘pie in the sky’, according to UKIP’s EU Budget Spokesman, Jonathan Arnott MEP.
The comments were made in the EU’s budgetary committee yesterday when UKIP’s MEP quizzed the EU Commission representative over the £1.7bn charge which was landed on the UK taxpayer nearly a fortnight ago.
The Brussels based EU Commission representative said “The regulations say that a member state shall pay in by the 1st December, there is no discretion on the date, there is no discretion on the amount, it has to be the one which has been calculated, and if the payment is not done by the 1st of December there is no discretion either not to apply the penalty interests”.
The charge initially gained an angry reaction from Mr Cameron who said that the figure and deadline were ‘unacceptable’.
Following the meeting, Jonathan Arnott MEP said “There is a clear consensus among the euro elite that the UK taxpayer will be paying the £1.7bn surcharge, if not, we should expect a hefty fine. Cameron’s pledge not to pay a single penny has been left as pie in the sky, and he’s has been left battered and bruised by the Brussels based bureaucrats once again”.
The EU chief’s comments come just over a week after Angela Merkel dismissed Cameron’s hopes of an EU renegotiation over the free movement of workers, with the German Chancellor stating that Germany “would not tamper with the fundamental principles of free movement in the EU”.
Arnott added “Cameron promised to fight for the UK’s interests within the EU since he became Prime Minister in 2010. Since then, he hasn’t managed to get rid of a single stroke of a pen, of a single EU law”.
You can watch the full exchange here:
Sadly, I read more reports about low pay and high unemployment in our region. It is vital that our politicians and businesses work together to provide more jobs and better pay for our workforce, but this issue goes deeper than this.
We must make people’s pay go further, there are many ways of doing this. For example; those earning the minimum wage should not pay a penny in income tax. We must ensure that people can feed and house themselves on a full time job. It’s absurd that people are working all week but still can’t pay their bills and some even have to use food banks to feed their families. Where is the incentive to work if a basic salary can’t even provide for your children?
We must reduce the cost of living – eg. reducing energy bills by securing a stable energy supply and removing expensive wind farm surcharges from everyone’s energy bills. We can reinvest money wasted by pointless quangos and mismanaged foreign aid (recently given to not only corrupt governments but also nations with space programmes) into our local community to further drive investment, infrastructure, jobs and wages.
Jonathan Arnott MEP
UKIP, North East
I find it distressing to read that an 86 year old woman who “has had three heart attacks, heart surgery, cancer treatment and can hardly walk” has been told she no long qualifies for free NHS patient transport. Surely this goes against the entire point of the NHS if we refuse services to the most vulnerable in society?
I am passionate about defending our free NHS, but changes are desperately needed to make sure that money is spent where it should be spent: on patient care. I am fundamentally opposed to the privatisation of the NHS (including Labour’s PFI project to privatise by stealth) but it is time we had a serious, grown up, constructive conversation on all sides about how to improve patient care.
Jonathan Arnott MEP
UKIP, North East