The world and the new Obs or many inaccurate information

The newspapers the world and the new Obs Echo inaccurate information about the MENL, the European political party that I chair.

In accordance with article 10 (4) of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Article 224 of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union (TFEU), European political parties receive funding from the European Parliament.

This annual financing, in the form of an operating grant, depends on the number of MEPs affiliated with a political party at European level.

It is necessary to underline that the provisions on the financing of political parties apply, on the same basis, to all the political forces represented in the European Parliament.

In 2015, the Movement for a Europe of nations and freedoms, with its 24 MEPs in the European Parliament, received a subsidy of EUR 1,211,039.00. Only 40% of this sum, i.e. EUR 521,588.20, was used by the MENL, whose National Front (FN) and Ms Le Pen are members.

By way of comparison, the political party at European level, which is a member of the Republican Party, the EPP, spent the same period 8,053,043.21 EUR, more than 90% of the grant granted.

And it is nearly EUR 4,232,418.38 (8 times the total budget of the MENL) of European public money that was spent by this European party for very opaque "staff costs".

For the PES, a political party at European level of the French Socialist Party, the expenditure amounts to EUR 5,828,178.60 of subsidy of a maximum amount of EUR 6,541,317.00 (i.e. 89% of the amount granted by Parliament), of which EUR 3,097,395.82 (or 53%) for the Staff.

As the closing of the 2016 budget year is still ongoing, it is clear that the "information" relayed by the aforementioned newspapers is erroneous. It is perfectly wrong that the MENL has pocketed 3.1 million euros. On the other hand, we suggest to these great journalism professionals to question the astronomical sums spent by the large parties in total opacity and at the expense of the European taxpayer.

We have opposed a right of reply to these articles containing many inaccurate information.