Tuesday, 9 August 2016

Welsh members will decide Nathan Gill's fate

Nathan Gill has been given a temporary reprieve by the NEC over his double jobbing as an AM and MEP. He will be allowed to keep both jobs until the membership in Wales are given an opportunity to vote on the matter.

The NEC had previously issued an ultimatum to Gill, instructing him to stand down from either the Welsh Assembly or the EU Parliament or face expulsion from the party. He refused as the only person left on the UKIP list who isn't now an AM resigned from UKIP to campaign against the Welsh Assembly meaning that his replacement as an MEP would either be someone who isn't a UKIP member any more or would have to be chosen in a by-election at a cost of about £5m to the taxpayer.

In deciding to refer the decision to the membership it would appear that the NEC want to be seen to be addressing complaints that they aren't involving the membership in the decision making process. It's a shame that it's taken a campaign to remove them all from office to remind them that they're working for the members and not the other way round.

I have every confidence that Welsh members will back Nathan Gill and appreciate the value that being an MEP can bring to Brexit planning in the Welsh Assembly in a way that the NEC apparently can't.

Posted by wonkotsane at 19:54
Labels:
"Go to IntenseDebate"
Comments (2)

About the author:
wonkotsane is an author at Bloggers4UKIP.

Comments (2)

Loading... Logging you in...
Dashboard | Edit profile | Logout
  • Logged in as
0 Vote up Vote down
Roger Gough's avatar

Roger Gough · 450 weeks ago

This - if any further evidence were needed - shows just how ridiculous (and dangerous) the NEC, on the face of it, is making itself look. Exactly why is Mr Gill required to resign either of his posts? He was lawfully elected to both and, as such, can retain both. (He currently retains both and no authority outside of the NEC is wanting that to change). Why are only Welsh members being asked to vote on this matter? As a supposedly democratic party all members should be included. Is there a rule on this? Why are they not demanding that a vote be taken on his MEP post? If they can oust him from his Welsh post then it follows that on a membership vote - however narrowly they draft it - any UKIP MEP can be removed from post on the NEC's whim (without a membership vote, as they initially tried to do with Mr Gill) and one of their cronies installed in the vacant post. This position is not unique. Lord Bach, a Labour Peer, was voted in as Leicestershire Police and Crime Commissioner this year. Both posts are political and to date he has not been asked to resign either of them. Can anyone direct me to the UKIP rule which allows this power grab? If this is deemed democratic then the NEC will be 'ruling' an increasingly diminishing number of supporters - that presumably is their intention. Also, I am not at all obliged to the NEC for keeping everyone in the dark over their machinations on this matter. If I am considered so insignificant that I should 'stay in my place', remain intentionally uninformed by the NEC, and not engage with the Party's death wish, I will gladly opt out of being a donor and laugh at you as the Party implodes. You are behaving like the spoilt Remainders and EU Commissioners that so many of us worked tirelessly to defeat.
+1 Vote up Vote down
Barbara 's avatar

Barbara · 450 weeks ago

I can only say I completely agree with you. I am a UKIP member who lives in Wales and will voting in favour of Nathan Gill.. This problem with the NEC is coming to head.. and I believe it will damage the Party.

Post a new comment

Comments by