[A-List] UK state: UKIP

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

This is the outfit that Norman Tebbit complained was being supported by none
other than MI6...


Collins joins Kilroy in UKIP's battle for Britain

Michael White, political editor
Tuesday May 25, 2004
The Guardian

The UK Independence party will add glamour to its campaign for the June 10
elections when it announces that the timeless celebrity Joan Collins has
become a supporter.

The expected announcement comes as UKIP enjoys a boost from an internet
YouGov poll which showed it in third place - with 18%, ahead of the Lib Dems
on 15% - among people "very likely" to vote.

It plans to raise its profile still further as it struggles to establish
itself as Britain's fourth party, to the Eurosceptic right of the Tories.

"If we get a big no vote on June 10, Blair will not sign the European
constitution in Brussels on June 18," one UKIP MEP predicted yesterday.

The party has already benefited in the campaign from more predictable
endorsements - the actor Edward Fox, Sir Patrick Moore and the former motor
racing cham pion Stirling Moss -as well as the candidacy of the former
Labour MP and daytime TV star Robert Kilroy-Silk.

Mr Kilroy-Silk's celebrity and combative media skills have made waves and
created some internal tensions involving those who fear becoming "the
Kilroy-Silk party". However, he has helped draw in a certain kind of voter;
"Sierra Man whose Sierra is 14 years old," as one insider puts it.

The party had three MEPs elected in 1999. The unveiling of Ms Collins, the
Dynasty star who recently admitted to not voting, comes at a time when the
party is spending an unprecedented £2m to tap into voter discontent.

The Greens and Respect, George Galloway's anti-war coalition, are trawling
for Labour defectors on the left - as are the Lib Dems - and the British
National party is another uncertain force on the far right.

The prominent UKIP MEP Nigel Farage says he believes the other small party
to watch in 2004 is the Greens. "The BNP doesn't exist," he claims.

UKIP claims to be touching a public nerve beyond its traditionally strong
base in the south of England. Though he insists that UKIP has moved beyond
being a party dedicated to the single issue of taking Britain out of Europe,
Mr Farage says this is the issue of the moment. "We don't believe this
campaign should be a referendum on Iraq, or about schools or hospitals," he
says.

UKIP is trying to break away from years of internal squabbles over ideology,
funding and the purity of its membership lists, where there has been
movement between it and the BNP in several well-publicised cases.

Some UKIP chiefs, notably its leader, Roger Knapman, a government MP and
whip under John Major, are former Tories. Others, including Jeffrey Titford
MEP, are former members of the anti-immigration New Britain party. But one
sympathiser insists: "If they were racist, I'd be off."

Most of its £2m comes from small donors among its 20,000 members, but two
large donors stand out - Alan Bown, a retired bookie who has given over
£200,000 in the past year, and Paul Sykes, the IT millionaire who was a
thorn in John Major's side over Europe.

Some UKIP activists are mainly concerned to influence the Tories. But Mr
Farage says a majority have their sights on becoming a proper party in the
Thatcherite mould.

Like most small party insurgencies, it may all be hot air. But UKIP is
trying hard. On June 6 effigies of Tony Blair, John Major and Edward Heath
will be paraded outside Traitor's Gate at the Tower of London. "My job is to
make sure the effigies aren't hanged," says the party's press officer, Mark
Croucher. "It would be bad PR."

-----


UKIP: is there a hidden agenda?
Norman Tebbit has uncovered an intriguing story about a possible link
between Europe and the security services
The Spectator
26 May 2001

I have heard more than a few conspiracy theorists telling me of plots
against the Queen or how the KGB had infiltrated the Vatican, not to mention
absolutely reliable sightings of Little Green Men from Mars. The Little
Green Men fraternity are not too much trouble. A promise that their news
will be passed to the special unit monitoring LGM is sufficient cover to
escape. The conspiracy theorists are more difficult as they are reluctant to
accept that the cock-up theory is more often right than the conspiracy one.
So when a disgruntled ex-employee of the United Kingdom Independence Party
told me that the party had been infiltrated by - of all things - MI6, my
first thought was 'Here's another one'.

'Did I have a bad day? Well, I had a full head of hair when I left this
morning, didn't I?
Mr X did not impress at first sight. Though he was not wearing an anorak, he
had the air of a man who would. His credentials, however, were good: a
long-time Labour supporter, opponent of entry into the Common Market,
assistant to the late Eric Heffer when the party's policy (to which young
Tony Blair subscribed) was to negotiate Britain's exit from the EEC. He told
me a story full of circumstantial - but not direct - evidence. One phrase
and two names stuck in my mind.

'However often you take off the overcoat,' he said, 'it still fits when you
put it back on.' He claimed (and I agree with him, but the leaders of UKIP
do not) that the party had veered away from a policy of standing against
sitting Europhile MPs to one of standing in seats where a sitting Tory MP
might be ousted or a Tory candidate might be kept out, however good their
Eurosceptic credentials might be. Many such seats are in the West Country
where the arch-sceptic Patrick Nicholls has a majority of only 281 over the
Liberal Democrats, with 13,000 Labour votes available to be squeezed. UKIP
polled 1,600 and clearly has no chance of winning, but maintain that their
candidate will take votes mainly from the LibDems and Labour, not from
Patrick Nicholls. I find that hard to believe.

If I am right, UKIP's intervention will be immensely damaging to the Tories,
and will give their Europhiles the platform to overturn a Eurosceptic
leadership; Lord Brittan fired the first shots in that campaign in the Times
earlier this week. Nigel Farage - who left the Tories at the time of
Maastricht - is confident that I am mistaken. If he is wrong, however, UKIP
will have played into the hands of Blair and Brussels. A badly battered Tory
party plunged into a leadership crisis would offer Blair the perfect
opportunity to bounce Britain into the euro before the sceptics could be
rallied to organise a No campaign.

That overcoat fits. It even fits with Blair's fanatical obsession not just
to beat but to destroy the Conservative party.

Then there were the two names. Mr X had no proof, but he believed that they
had links to a British intelligence service. Somewhat half-heartedly, I made
my own inquiries and unexpectedly struck gold. There is no doubt in my mind
about what is known in the trade as their 'provenance'. I challenged one
directly: 'Are you or have you ever been a member of [that agency]?' Denial
came there none, only an angry retort that I should be ashamed of myself for
asking such a question.

The agency does not answer questions of that sort either - and quite right
too. Its practice is firmly but non-attributably to deny that it would ever
sanction an agent on the active list to intervene in the affairs of a
British political party. The agency would say that the recent legislation on
political oversight of the intelligence services makes it impossible for
such action to be authorised. However, I am perfectly sure that the
individuals had been active agents, although both would claim to have
retired some years ago, well before joining UKIP.

The conspiracy theory was given a boost when I discovered this week that
during the 1997 election both individuals worked for Jimmy Goldsmith's
Referendum party. The first to be employed promptly recruited the other.
With its single manifesto commitment to seek a referendum on British
membership of the European Union, it was seen, and proved to be, a more
credible contender than UKIP, polling more than 800,000 out of about one
million Eurosceptic votes. It was a poor return for Goldsmith's £20 million
investment. I have often reflected that I could have made much better use of
that money to advance his cause.

After the 1997 election both individuals moved to UKIP. One is still there.
I understand the other resigned his post some three months ago, having lost
the confidence of some of his colleagues. I do not believe the leaders of
UKIP were aware of the background of these people when they were employed.
Although there was no shock at UKIP when I told them what I knew about the
person who had left, there was some surprise about the other one.

There is nothing illegal or improper in former intelligence officers joining
political parties as staff members or to seek election. There are former
agents in both Houses of Parliament, but to find two in such small
organisations as the Referendum party or UKIP is somewhat against the odds.
It is easy enough to postulate innocent explanations for the activities of
these two people. One can believe the denials of the agency for which they
worked - although in the immortal words of Miss Mandy Rice-Davies, 'They
would say that, wouldn't they?' It is possible that they might have been
recruited by a non-British agency with a particular interest in the politics
of Europe in this country.

Maybe the leaders of UKIP, whose good faith I do not doubt, are right to
believe that hordes of former LibDem voters are poised to jump ship from the
most extreme Europhile party in Britain to vote for the most anti-European
party in Britain. I can only say that I will be as surprised as Charles
Kennedy if it works out that way.

Since Attlee's Labour government helped to create Nato, all three major
parties have agreed that membership of that alliance is in the British
national interest. Through the 1950s, 1960s and 1970s those opposing
membership were regarded as certainly misguided and possibly subversive.

It is possible to draw a parallel with the present agreement of the three
major parties that Britain should remain within the European Union - in, of
course, our national interest. A party whose sole raison d'être is British
withdrawal might be regarded as subversive. Already New Labour equates
patriotism with membership and describes calls for withdrawal as
'unpatriotic'.

The Cold War is over. The EU is not Nato. UKIP is not a danger to the United
Kingdom (though it may be to the European Union). If the Conservative party
moved further into Euroscepticism, even contemplating withdrawal, the state
would not be endangered, so interference in UKIP could not be justified.

Once away from the heat and dust of an election campaign, it would be wise
to set up an independent inquiry to establish whether anything improper has
gone on. I hope it would conclude that despite appearances there has been
nothing more than a string of coincidences and some bad political judgments.
In the meantime, the voters should be informed of the facts and left to make
up their minds by 7 June.

They should also listen to what the parties say about Europe. Essentially
the Blair position is that anything the EU wants goes. There is quibbling
but no lines drawn in the sand. Labour might drag its feet or grumble - but
in the end it agrees to what our partners want. Hague is different. His
position on the euro was painfully caricatured by John Humphrys: 'If you are
only committed to the pound for one parliament, what about the monarchy?'
Hague's answer is sound. He cannot commit the British people for more than
one parliament. He sees not just an ephemeral economic advantage from
keeping the pound but that, if our currency goes, the Bank of England's
economic policy will too, with tax and public expenditure following soon
after. He has no need to offer a referendum. The election promise is to keep
the pound, but Hague's refusal - just - to say 'No euro on principle; No for
ever' has allowed Tory Europhiles to accept his policy.

More broadly, the slogan 'In Europe but not ruled by Europe' makes sense to
millions of voters nervous of the trauma of disengaging from the European
Union. In practice Prime Minister Hague might find our 'partners' unwilling
to offer that option. What then? Who would favour 'in and ruled by' and who
would opt for 'out and rule ourselves'?

Hague's promise not to ratify the Nice Treaty would shock Europe. His policy
to allow other states to integrate, even into a single state if they wished
(getting the British dog out of the federal manger), would require a
fundamental rewriting of the Treaty of Rome. That could allow the Central
European states into the EU, with Britain and several other states 'in' a
Europe to which they did not have to concede the right to independent
self-government. Germany and France could merge - if that is what they
wanted - into a federal republic, a more realistic project than the merger
of ten or 20 states.

Hague's proposal for 'reserved powers' to prevent the EU from overriding
Parliament in areas where we never intend to give powers to them sounds
innocent enough, but is bound to lead to clashes with Brussels. This, too,
could be resolved only by British surrender or a new treaty. The refusal to
ratify Nice would be a clear signal and a powerful bargaining token.

Whatever the outcome of the UKIP affair, even UKIP knows that only a victory
for Hague can prevent Britain being bounced into the euro in a rigged
referendum and dragged down the federal road to the point of no return. Not
even ten seats for UKIP could stop that - and I'm afraid they will not win
even one.

UKIP supporters who want their votes to count would be wise to vote for Tory
candidates wherever the seat might otherwise fall to Europhile LibDems or
Labour.