What is really going on in politics? Get our daily email briefing straight to your inbox Sign up Thank you for subscribing We have more newsletters Show me See our privacy notice Invalid Email

UKIP was tonight dragged into the anti-Semitism row.

The party has been urged to accept the globally recognised definition of anti-Semitism.

But senior figures blocked the move, claiming members’ free speech should not be restricted, according to emails leaked to the Daily Mirror.

Elizabeth Jones, a member of Ukip’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC), wrote: “No way. We are the party of free speech. We cannot sign any document that restricts that position.”

The row erupted after another NEC member, Pat Bryant, suggested signing up to the anti abuse pledge, because it would convince members the party’s opposition to ritual slaughter was not fuelled by anti-Semitism.

She also suggested signing up to the pledge would “put Labour on the back foot.”

Labour have been under fire after its ruling body chose to accept the text of the definition developed by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance (IHRA), but alter some of the ‘working examples’ of anti-Semitism.

(Image: PA)

Colleague Michael McGough said he was “loathe” to sign up to the agreement, because he never “signs declarations or petitions” when he is standing as a candidate for election.

He added: “I would rather send a letter supporting their aims but stating we do not sign third party declarations.”

But Paul Oakley, the party’s General Secretary said he would be happy to sign up to the definition, arguing anyone using “free speech” to spread anti-Semitic abuse would be breaking the party’s Constitution.

Ukip leader Gerard Batten last night refused to sign the party up to the definition in full, insisting anti-Semitism is covered under the party’s existing rules against discrimination.

(Image: UKIP Mole Valley)

He told the Mirror: “UKIP has a long-standing position of not formally signing up as a body to external positions, petitions, etc, because to do so for one would merely embroil us in endless discussions about why we might do so for one but not another.“

He said the NEC members who discussed the issue on email were speaking as individuals and not on behalf of the party.

He added: “Personally I have no problem with this definition, and I can informally endorse it on behalf of the Party.”

The IHRA definition reads: “Anti-Semitism is a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews.

“Rhetorical and physical manifestations of anti-Semitism are directed toward Jewish or non-Jewish individuals and/or their property, toward Jewish community institutions and religious facilities.”

The ‘working examples’ include denying fact or scope of the Holocaust, making stereotypical allegations about Jews controlling the media and economy and comparing Israeli policy to the Nazis.

Ms Jones has been approached for comment.