The unofficial online home of the UK Independence Party
Archive for June, 2009
Stop paying the Pro-EU BBC
Jun 30th
It is evident that the BBC is heavily biased in favour of the EU and against UKIP. We could put a great deal of pressure on it to reform itself by threatening to stop paying our licence fees if it does not improve, specifically if it does not become less politically biased.
There is already a campaign to stop paying the licence fee here http://www.tpuc.org/stoppayingtvlicencefees. We could use the letter which is provided there but add something like the following:
Dear Sir,
In the recent European Election, the UK Independence Party came second, ahead of the Labour Party and the Liberal Democrats. This election was the first one to involve the whole electorate since 2005 and it sent out a strong message that many people in the UK support the ideas and policies that UKIP put forward. Unfortunately, since the European Election, those people have hardly been represented on the BBC at all. The flagship political programmes on BBC television and radio, Question Time and Any Questions, for instance, have not had any participants from UKIP since the election. This is very strong evidence of the pro-EU bias which exists within the BBC. What is the reason for this bias?
(The rest of the letter can come from the website to which I gave a link.)
It has been brought to my attention that the Corporation has received and is now receiving substantial amounts of funding from the European Union, in breach of Charter Provisions, and that in consequence of this very suspect arrangement the BBC is now reduced to the function of providing both broadcasting & propaganda facilities to a form of alien authority that fails to acknowledge the Supreme Authority of the British Crown.
I must advise you that all such conduct serves to breach the provisions of the Treason Act, 1351 with the further provisions of the Treason & Felony Act, 1848.
In addition, I must advise that the Treason & Felony Act of 1848 provides that it is a Criminal Offence for Subjects of the Crown to give aid or comfort to Traitors, and that this offence is punishable by imprisonment for life.
I am concerned for my own position and I must ask you to cease and desist from all treacherous conduct & financial arrangements, without delay.
Unless I receive your written assurance that the Corporation will issue an immediate public apology for all Treason committed thus far, with your further guarantee that the Corporation will cease and desist from all and any conduct that fails to maintain the Supremacy of the British Crown, then I must give fair warning of my intention to discontinue the payment of all such moneys as are now being applied to the financial support of the BBC. I also expect to receive assurance that in future the UK Independence Party will be offered at least as much airtime as the Labour Party, given that it received more votes in the latest national election.
I look forward to receipt of your immediate response to this present letter and I give notice that payments in support of the BBC will be suspended, unless I receive a satisfactory response within 14 days of this present date.
Yours faithfully,
(Sign Here)
Highlighted sentence added by me.
If thousands of angry UKIP supporters send this letter out to the BBC on the same day, it will send a shiver up their spines. We need to act together. Copies of the letter could be sent to all local and national newspapers. Whether they would print them or not, I don’t know, but it would certainly stir up a lot of discussion.
I am willing to give it a go. What about everyone else on here? We must do something radical in order to get the UKIP message out. At the moment, we are dying from a lack of the oxygen of publicity. We need to be seen on television and heard on radio if we want to be taken seriously in the general election. If we all act together, this will have a tremendous impact.
I would be grateful if people would respond to this idea, even if it’s just a yes or no. Thanks.
Something Afoot?
Jun 29th
Shaun Lowthorpe, public affairs correspondent for the Eastern Daily Press, has this to say about UKIP’s prospects in Norwich North…
Just back from an interview with Nigel Farage who is campaigning in the city today.
Apart from being engagingly unspun, what struck me was how he was approached by people in the street who all said they would support the party, including the Italian cafe owner where we met up, enough to make me think something might be afoot with the voters.
UKIP’s biggest problem is persuading people that a vote for them is not a wasted vote. But I can see how Mr Farage would pass the ‘George W Bush BBQ’ test with many voters in Norwich North.
Interesting times.
Interesting times indeed!
Devolving Power
Jun 27th
Janet Daley, writing in the Telegraph, has an interesting article regarding ‘power to the people’, which can be viewed here.
Commenting on the inefficiency and impracticality of allowing politicians and bureaucrats to spend other peoples money – highlighting MP’s expenses and the BBC in particular – Daley ponders whether this may be the catalyst to harnessing the public’s anger, as Thatcher did against trades unions and ‘Loony Left’ local authorities.
She makes a telling point, encapsulating a hidden ‘dig’ against the Conservative Party, when she states:
“For public outrage must present an opportunity – if not an obligation – to an Opposition. If popular anger can’t be channelled through mainstream politics, then democracy is useless.”
If politicians are truly wishing to devolve power to the people, instead of mouthing platitudes, then it can only be enacted by a belief in what Hannan & Carswell call ‘true localism’.
Under the present system local government is but a sham and it is for this reason that turnout at local elections is so low as people now seem to be aware that their vote counts for nought.
The allocation of monies to local authorities by the Treasury is made purely on assessing spending needs against the level of local services. Therefore a good local authority, able to produce a high standard of local services does not qualify for as large a Treasury ‘handout’ as one that is inefficient. Consequently voters are unable to reward, or punish, the behaviour of their local council as it is far from clear who is actually responsible, on top of which a local council has only limited control over its budget. Couple this with the situation that where councils employ the ‘Cabinet System’ of local authority government to implement central government dictats, a council of say 50 councillors incorporating a Cabinet of say 7, means that the remaining 43 councillors are, in effect, disenfranchised.
Without, in turn, sounding patronising one does wonder how many of the electorate fully appreciate the source of funding for local authorities and whether it is believed that Council Tax is the sole provider of that funding.
For ‘true localism’ – and local government – to work for the benefit of local people, the following needs to happen:
* Abolish regional development agencies, regional government offices, MAAs (Multi-Area Agreements) and transfer all their powers to local authorities.
* Abolish the Department of Communities & Local Government and pass their powers to local authorities also.
* Grant to all local authorities responsibility for all areas of policy which have been devolved to the Scottish Parliament, under the 1998 Scotland Act.
* Replace VAT with a Local Sales Tax.
* Make all local authorities self-financing.
Without central government grants and making local authorities self-financing, local councillors would have to stand on their record, thus allowing voters to judge them accordingly. As one of the aids to making local authorities self-financing, let us consider a local sales tax, which would be a charged just once at the point of retail. Local councils would be free to vary the rate levied, dependent on their spending needs. To take a local example, were Wiltshire to set a lower rate than West Oxfordshire, then West Oxfordshire may well find shoppers crossing county lines to spend their money, to the gain of Wiltshire and the loss to West Oxfordshire. It would, as a result, introduce something to this country that we have never previously experienced, namely tax competition which, in turn, must lead to a downward pressure on taxes. Tax competition would also force local authorities to accept what is known as the ‘Laffer Curve’; that is, that setting lower tax rates might well net them greater revenue with the added advantage that business and trade may well be attracted to low-tax areas, thus broadening the tax base.
By the abolition of the Department of Communities & Local Government one immediately returns to local people control over what may be described as quality-of-life issues such as siting of mobile phone masts, siting of incinerators and local planning.
But why stop there?
All three main political parties, when discussing the NHS, treat this subject as if it were a ’sacred cow’ – it is not. The NHS is a service provider and as such should be subjected to a review of, and the implementation of, an acceptable level of service and efficiency. Why not, for example:
* Allow patients to opt out of the NHS and instead pay their contributions into individual private health accounts, a proportion to be allocated to everyday healthcare and the remainder set aside for insurance against serious illness.
* Allow those who choose to remain in the system, or cannot afford to contribute to a private healthcare system, to remain within the NHS.
* Incentivisation for prevention of illness, rather than cure.
The last point may well introduce an effort by people to avoid developing habits and conditions that require expensive remedies.
How about social security?
For far too long governments have seen their social security budgets balloon with little effect on relative or absolute poverty. Millions of people have become trapped in a world of relative squalor and low expectation. In their publication, The Plan, Hannan and Carswell state: “….as long as you pay people to be poor, you will never run out of poor people.”
Why not:
* Return responsibility for the relief of poverty to local authorities.
* Allow local authorities to determine eligibility for benefits
* Provide local authorities a bloc grant for social security and give local authorities discretion over the allocation of those funds
Consider: Person A may be a widow or pensioner who has fallen on hard times whilst person B may be a local ‘layabout’. Would not a ‘local’ caseworker be more able to discern the difference than a government controlled ’service’?
Local authorities would be free to innovate and devise ideas and pilot schemes – those that work will soon be copied by other local authorities, thus benefiting the country as a whole. Many benefit cheats see their activities as ‘cheating the system’ rather than ‘cheating their neighbours’ – introduce localism and local accountability and benefit cheats really will soon seen to be ‘cheating their neighbours’.
What about education? It is generally accepted that schools and the education system is failing and the reason is simple – too much government!
Consider:
Government decides how many schools there are in any area.
Government decides the rules which dictate where your children go to school.
Government decides what they learn and how they are taught.
Government decides who can teach and how teachers are trained.
Government decides the hours your children spend in school, how many hours are spent on different subjects, what they eat and how they behave.
So the Government has created a monopoly, as in the health service, thus giving parents little choice. A state monopoly means uniformity and that, in turn, creates mediocrity, hence the lowering of standards – and the government is surprised when parents opt for home education. Even then parents are not ‘left alone’, but subjected to ‘innuendo’, in the argument against parents providing home education; this being done by hints of the opportunity for ‘child abuse’.
So why not introduce ‘true localism’ by providing parents with a form of ‘credit account’ – ie the amount of money that the education of their child, or children, would cost and allow the parents to spend that sum at whatever school they chose, being one that provided the type and level of education that the parents wanted?
Why not consider the question of law & order?
Contained within our Council Tax demands is a ‘precept’, which is passed to the local police authority. This is another example of public money being spent by unaccountable and unelected individuals who then decide, under Home Office ‘guidance’, their policing priorities. As this is ‘your’ money, should you not have a voice in how it is spent? Should not those spending it be accountable to those providing said funding.
Now were Chief Constables forced to stand for election by their local community – and this is another argument for each local authority having their own police force – then, each candidate could present their ‘manifesto’ for law enforcement. For example, should the voters in a local authority vote for a candidate that promises zero tolerance to crime, then that is what they will be given and if the elected Chief Constable fails to deliver what the voters require – they elected him and so can ‘un-elect him’ – would result in true local democracy in action!
It is worth reminding readers that all ‘local’ services are provided with your money, whether this is by payment of Council Tax or taxation in general and consequently you have a ‘right’ to decide how it is spent.
On the question of ‘rights’, whether this is in regard to ‘local’ democracy or democracy ‘per se’, bearing in mind the three main political parties wish to devolve power – power which they have ‘assumed’ in most cases – it is worth recalling the words of Aldous Huxley;
“Liberties are not given, they are taken.”
Invisible Prison
Jun 27th
It is no revelation to those of us in the libertarian cadre of politics that we in the UK are living in an invisible prison. Assaults on freedom of speech, thought and conscience and the freedom of assembly and association.
Things such as the smoking ban and working time directive are examples of how the state has booby-trapped our world. One false step, perhaps unknowingly, and you get zapped. The web of measures is designed to control us, force us to behave in certain ways to ensure the ‘model society’ can be built.
So is it any surprise to read about this in the Times?
More than 700 “controlled drinking zones” have been set up across England, giving police sweeping powers to confiscate beer and wine from anyone enjoying a quiet outdoor tipple.
Local authorities are introducing the zones at a rate of 100 a year,The Times has learnt. Some cover whole cities, a radical departure from what the law intended.
Once a control zone is in place, police can seize alcohol from anyone who is not on licensed premises, even if the bottles or cans are unopened. Although drinking is not banned in the zones, police can ask anyone to stop drinking and it is an offence to refuse, punishable by a maximum £500 fine. No explanation or suspicion that the person could be a public nuisance is required. The highest fine will soon rise to £2,500.
Campaigners say that if the rapid spread of the zones is not halted it will soon be impossible to find anywhere to have a picnic or outdoor drink on a summer’s evening.
No doubt it will soon be illegal to fart, let alone “look dodgy”.
As for the fact that some of these orders “cover whole cities, a radical departure from what the law intended”, well quelle surprise! The law should have damn well stipulated limitations then, shouldn’t it? As it stands this kind of use is exactly what the law intended.
If a police officer tries it on with me I’ll take another swig, get out a pen and ask “who should i make the cheque payable to?”.
The Home Office acknowledged that there was a problem with the law, and pointed to revised guidelines issued to police and local authorities in December last year to try to curb over-zealous policing.
And here we are back to the problem of “guidelines”. Guidelines might sound like a good idea – they give context to the spirit of legislation. However, the guidelines are issues arbitrarily by the government and not approved by parliament, essentially allowing the executive branch of government to legislate de facto.
UKIP proposes in its Constitutional Affairs policy paper, that guidelines ought to be treated as an integral part of the original Bill as it passes through Parliament and ought to be as open to scrutiny as the rest of the legislation itself. Any changes to guidelines subsequently must thus seek approval of Parliament.
Will a Conservative government change the situation? I would love to think so but I have not seen any substance from Cameron that suggests a Cameron led Britain would look very much different from a Blair/Brown led Britain. In 10 years time we will still be living our authoritarian “1984″ nightmare.
We desperately need to hack away at the core of government and undertake some sober, cold minded, blood letting. We need a government prepared to dedicate energy and determination to repeal, dismantle and de-regulate the country. It has to be a primary objective of a government or else nothing of material impact will be achieved in this regard.
Jack Straw: Idiocy
Jun 27th
On YouTube I am subscribed to the “laboureuroteam” channel. Quite why I really don’t know, because the drivel that is produced is incredible.
Today when I logged in to see my latest subscription updates I was presented with this hideous piece of nonsense. Apart form the first 3m 30s where I am treated to the sight of Linda McAvan MEP, and wonder in astonishment that she is actually an elected representative!, the answers given by the panel on the question of the EU are amazing.
A selection of quotes from each of the panelists…
Linda
“..there are issues where one country cannot resolve on its own anymore”
“..there are talks in Germany about the future of General Motors. GM is an American company. Whatever happens in Germany will affect jobs in this country. We have to work with other countries because our companies are global, the world is shrinking”
“..If you travel from Sheffield to London by train it takes 2hrs. From London to Brussels it’s 1hr 50mins. The world is shrinking”
What? Is she serious? That is the best argument she can come up with to explain why she believes the EU is necessary and important?
Not a single person I know has ever said that there are not issues which can only be dealt with at an international level. Not a single person I know would disagree that whatever happens in Germany affects jobs in the UK.
Jack Straw
“A lot of the people who criticise the EU call up images of the last war, and proud Britain, and all the rest of it”
” Remind people what happened in 2 world wars which blighted my parents, your grandparent and their parents generation, and killed millions of people across Europe, and for getting on for a thousand years we Europeans were the most violent peoples in the world and we could only resolve our arguments by war, and every century there were wars.”
“Why I’m passionate about our membership…that what we were doing there was an alternative to violence, and war and killing each other”
Again, WTF? Exactly how many Eurosceptics have you heard calling up images of the world wars? It is a question of democracy. I have certainly heard a few Eurosceptics make the point that we went through horrific conflict to defend our freedom and democracy from tyranny, but not once, never, have I heard anybody raise the issue of the war in the context Jack Straw seems to imply – i.e. we hate foreigners. Not once!
As for European peoples being violent that is just pure poppycock. The conflicts across Europe were driven by a lack of democracy, not too much. It was not nation states which were war mongering, but the unhinged leaders. As for more general conflict, well that is certainly not unique to Europe – look almost anywhere in the rest of the world in the same time periods and you will see conflict.
But to say that the EU is good because it is somehow an alternative to war is pure bullsh*t. The alternative to war is peaceful diplomacy, cooperation, neighbourliness, and friendship. At no point by any logical argument can the only alternative to war and conflict be the integration and harmonisation of governance.
Eddie Izzard
“What I’m saying is the UK learning to work together…otherwise what’s the point of civilisation? What’s the point of us being on the planet if were not trying to make it all work?”
“So people who say pulling out of Europe…it’s what we do..civilisation is what we do. the UK is a great example of countries coming together and working together, and we don’t lose our identity as well…if you watch the Scottish play the English in a football game the Scottish are rather Scottish and the English are rather English”
I’m sorry. What is this trash? Here’s that false dichotomy again – either you must like EU integration, or you want us to leave the EU and sulk in the corner, and not cooperate. The intellectual brain power necessary to arrive at that logical conclusion is equivalent to that of an amoeba methinks.
And to think concern about the EU is down to losing our identity is again a complete misunderstanding. Quite frankly it wouldn’t be a great shame if Morris dancing died out, would it now? But seriously, the only threat to national identity is the threat to national culture – harmonised legislation which rubs against the cultural grains of EU nations will have precisely that effect, but that is a totally different argument about the content of legislation.
The real concern over the EU is centred around the structure of governance. Both the current undemocratic structure, and then the more detailed arguments around the undesirability of supranational legislative authority.
And people continue to vote for Labour! Just amazing.
An MP Seeing Stars?
Jun 26th
Courtesy of The Taxpayers Alliance comes this star claim by one of our elected ‘political elite’.
Whilst the sum involved is not ‘astronomical’, in all fairness – the only claim he made was for ACA, so no furniture, gardening, food, laundry or repairs – one cannot accuse him of having Saturn furniture he bought with our money, whilst searching for a Mars bar or thinking, by Jupiter, what a lovely Uranus Venus has, while his dog Pluto sat obediently at his feet, with the occasional howl at the Moon!
Just saying is all………………..
Note: Before anyone feels the need to comment that Saturn, Uranus, Venus and Pluto are planets – from down here, with the naked eye, they look like stars!
Comment On A Met Office Forecast
Jun 26th
The Meteorological Office Speaks!
Once again the Met Office has come out with a forecast which may, or may not, be reliable. True to form a government department promptly jumps on the band wagon and cranks up the temperature!
On a personal note, having been taken out to the Gold Coast – now known as Ghana – in 1945, aged three, and staying there until I was sent home to boarding school eight years later, having taken holidays in Spain, Menorca, Ibiza and Northern Cyprus – where the temperature in the latter was over 40F – I hardly think 2/3 days is going to kill me!
Also do note that we now have a ‘Heatwave Plan’! Don’t you just love the way this government thinks of everything for us?
EuroparlTV Interviews Nigel Farage
Jun 26th
A great interview as ever. Why don’t the UK mainstream media give this kind of quality airtime?
Paranoid Ravings
Jun 25th
The private, international meetings of politicians would no doubt arouse the suspicions of most ordinary people (although, the way Gordon’s blagged his “inquiry” into the Iraq War, maybe Im wrong). In America such behaviour is technically illegal under the Logan Act (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act – Maybe someone could inform me of any equivalent British legislation?). And yet, the Bilderberg Conference has occurred annually since 1954 with no real opposition, challenges or inquiry. The Bilderberg Group, for those who don’t know, is an “unofficial, annual, invitation-only conference of around 130 guests, most of whom are persons of influence in the fields of politics, business, and banking.” Sounds like no more than a sad old boys’ club (as many participants have referred to it in the past), until you take note of the individuals attending. If Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands and Prince Phillipe of Belgium, for example, didn’t display the social prowess of the guestlist then maybe Clinton and Kissinger’s past appearances would. Or maybe the most recently significant attendee, then presidential candidate Barack Obama, would entice a bit of interest. And yet very little media has reported on the conference, all that surrounds the summit is an aura of “conspiracy.”
I find however, that the most disturbing and relevant guests to this alleged casual soiree of global officials and rulers are those of our own British political system. It won’t surprise most people to know that Blair was there innocently sipping his wine and having a laugh, oddly enough with our man Ken Clarke, back in ’93 (coincidentally the year before he was elected party leader), but the fact that the our recently coronated “Secretary of State” and business secretary, Peter Mandelson as well as Shadow Chancellor George Osbourne have both attended might provoke a little more concern. The man Gordon Brown risked the governing party’s collapse for, Eddie Balls, was also recently inaugurated into this special person’s Club Med. So my point is, as a result of my incessant paranoia Im sure, I find it a tad concerning that the four most influential positions in regards to the government of Britain’s economy are (or would be, had Gordon succeeded in making Balls chancellor) occupied by members of a conference at which matters of foreign policy and global economics are discussed with foreign, mostly European, equals. And where the public aren’t allowed a shred of insight.
Im sure Bilderberg Barrosso can provide a perfectly legitimate explanation of what goes on there however! He’d probably be more than happy to disclose the fact that at the Bilderberg Conference he recently attended in Athens, May 2009, the Lisbon Treaty apparently arose as a key topic of discussion.
Just a few thoughts from a paranoid individual!
Charlie Woodward
Revolution is spelt UKIP.
Jun 24th
The three old Westminster parties have had their chance. They have collectively presided over a system of politics that has been exposed as being corrupt, outdated and not there to serve the people, but to serve the gentlemen’s club. The politicians now talk of reform and change, but the election of Speaker Bercow is a joke, yet another creation of petty party politics. Moreover, it is telling that while MPs are now condeamning the very system that they created, they speak nothing of the corrupt system across the water in Brussels. They want reform limited to their own self-preservation. They are insincere and the public have finally had enough.
Joe Bloggs is no longer happy just to sit at home, stewing in his own disgust. A Harris poll has shown that UKIP is on 10% in General Election polling, a historic level which is higher than the party has ever polled before in the Westminster election. Yet amazingly Harris Interactive, the company which did the polling, didn’t even get UKIP’s name right, mistakingly calling the party “the UK Independent Party”. I suspect they soon, just like the Westminster politicians, will be a lot more aware of Nigel Farage’s party.
Liberal Vision
Jun 24th
Liberal Vision, a genuinely liberal blog (despite its Lib-Dem connections), has given what I believe to be an incredibly fair an accurate write up of Nigel Farage and UKIP.
To my mind it is perhaps the first article I have read which seems to understand the party and which sees it through the prism of what it could be – even, what it is trying to become. I have copied it in full below. Well said Mark Littlewood!
Is this man the Tories’ and LibDems’ worst nightmare?
Nigel Farage is the leader of a political party that was supposed to have been consigned to the dustbin of electoral history. After a flirtation with the TV celebrity Robert Kilroy-Silk and a one-off electoral breakthrough, it is was all going to end in tears.
The remnants of the United Kingdom Independence Party were to be picked over and shared out. This bunch of “loonies, extremists and fruitcakes” (to quote David Cameron) would then disappear back under whichever rock they’d crawled out from under.
Bad news then for Mr. Cameron – and any others who expected to laugh knowingly as UKIP entered its death throes. The party will field 500 candidates at the next General Election and may have found a genuine means to build its infrastructure after its sensational second place showing in the Euro elections. UKIP’s poll ratings (usually clumped together with the growing % for “Others”) are as high as 8% for the Westminster elections. This is no longer just a day of headlines about a quirky party doing surprisingly well in a one-off set of obscure elections. UKIP is here to stay.
Farage set himself the objective of winning ten seats in this month’s European Parliamentary elections. A big ask. He’d pledged to tender his resignation as Party Leader if he failed to hit this target – and no one disbelieved him. He comfortably exceeded it. He may be considered a fringe figure in some quarters, but he is now a definite feature of Britain’s political landscape.
Nigel Farage has made a string of very sharp tactical and strategic moves. He has a slim, streamlined, but very talented staff. Gawain Towler, his chief lieutant, is a top-grade political asset with sharp organisational and communications judgement. Not just more personable than Damian McBride (most homo sapiens clear that hurdle), but highly intelligent too.
Unlike most politicians, Farage is not afraid to send himself up and when he does so, he comes across as a balanced man who is very comfortable in his own skin – in stark contrast to the anally-retentive members of the Westminster establishment.
The really intriguing thing is that under Farage, UKIP is attempting to reach out beyond its narrow constitutional objections to the European Union. At today’s launch of the Save our Pubs & Clubs Campaign, he just turned up unannounced, matter-of-fact, mingled with other guests and then gave a short, pithy and witty presentation.
This is the sort of fleetness of foot and flexibility that, frustratingly, the leader of the Liberal Party used to have when it was smaller. Grimond, Thorpe and Steel led only a handful of MPs. This meant that their ability to set the party’s agenda themselves was considerable. A regrettable downside of having many more MPs (alongside a farcical, choking network of internal committees) is that Nick Clegg has to spend a considerable amount of time managing the party rather than just getting out there and “doing stuff.” Clegg’s day-to-day diary seems closer to that of a diplomat or ambassador, rather than that of a campaigner.
Farage is latching on to a number of freedom issues – such as the smoking ban – which the three major parties are united in ignoring . UKIP are beginning to couch their Euroscepticism within a wider narrative of antagonism towards the state. This doesn’t, of course, guarantee an automatic launch pad to 10 Downing Street, but it is a very clever “niche” strategy.
When – after the next election – the Tories become the third major party to appear to renege on a commitment to a Euro referendum, expect UKIP to have a field day.
Second class citizens?
Jun 24th
Leading Socialist MEP Jo Leinen has launched an astonishing tirade, even for one of the EU’s most hardcore supporters.
He claims that if the Irish vote no to the Lisbon Treaty for a second time, then Ireland and the Irish people will be relegated to a “second class” in the EU. This of course implies that if the Irish vote “no”, they will effectively be depriving themselves of something.
Yet Leinen goes on to say that a second Irish no may lead to a two speed European Union. That it would not be involved in the EU’s forging ahead in the areas of foreign affairs, justice and energy. That it would not become a part of a federal Europe, or at least as not as quickly as the rest of the EU’s member states. Ireland, Leinin insists, would not see themselves integrated in the EU if they vote no.
I think that makes things very clear. In reality, if the Irish once again vote no, they will be making themselves first class citizens in Europe. The EU, by demanding the Irish must vote on an identical Treaty for a second time, seeks to relegate ordinary people to second class citizens beneath the unelected political elite whose lust for European integration remains unquenched. Lets hope the Irish revolt continues.
The Conservative party’s disconnection is UKIP’s trump card.
Jun 24th
As someone who was made to attend one of the worst state secondary schools in the country as I was within its “catchment area” and my mum couldn’t afford to send me to the private school up the road, I fully applaud what David Davis has said today in his defence of grammar schools. In fact it was one of the two policies, including the issue of the EU, that made me join UKIP in the first place.
It is all very well for David Cameron to pose as some sort of uber-in-touch young moderniser. But the fact is his front bench is chocca full of not just public school boys, but Eton-educated people. Of course there is nothing wrong with being educated at Eton. In some ways I am quite envious of those who got such an opportunity. But a government and front bench should surely be full of people from a range of backgrounds and experiences.
Not so is Cameron’s case, as he has crammed his old friends in powerful posts around him. Perhaps this contributes to how out of touch they are. Opinion polls show that restoring the grammar school system is by far the most popular educational system. Same with leaving the EU and countless other issues where people feel no party represents them.
Just as the Labour party no longer stands up for the working man, there is no point being a working class striver in he Tory party. The Westminster establishment appear to have no interest in such people anymore. Or perhaps they are just so damn disconnected they don’t even know what people want or need anymore. What an indictment that is.
Parliamentary Sovereignty?
Jun 24th
Peter Obourne, writing in the Daily Mail, seems blissfully oblivious to the evolution of governance in this country over the previous 40 years.
Ever since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (when a Catholic King was toppled in favour of parliamentary democracy), Britain has enjoyed a system of parliamentary sovereignty. This has meant that Parliament has been acknowledged as the ultimate source of power in Britain, and the highest court in the land. But Gordon Brown’s Bill signals the creation of a new and omnipotent body to which Parliament must defer — provisionally called the Parliamentary Standards Authority. Initially, it will be charged with managing the Commons expenses system. It will also have exemplary powers to sack and punish MPs and ministers. In order to operate effectively, it will stand above Parliament. Even Speaker Bercow himself will defer to it.
Although Brown conceded that this was the ‘biggest reform you have ever seen in any period of the history of Parliament’, his judgment is a gross understatement. The reform marks a historic change in the regulation of British democracy — and a giant constitutional step into the unknown. What’s more, it has the frightening potential to cause great damage because it will hand vast powers to a new class of men and women who are not accountable to the electorate. At the heart of this lies a vital question first posed by the Greek philosopher Plato some 2,500 years ago: ‘Who guards the guardians?’”
Is Parliament still sovereign? It is a question we Eurosceptics agonise over, and generally come to the conclusion that while technically it remains sovereign – until the Lisbon Treaty enters force, that is – it is only a technicality since much practical sovereignty has been lost since the 1972 European Communities Act took us into the European Economic Community.
Mr Obourne also seems to fundamentally miss something quite important about modern politics…
Peter Mandelson remarked 15 years ago that the ‘age of representative democracy is coming to a close’. He meant that institutions such as Parliament would soon have served their time and that Britain was moving to a new age with a populist system of elective dictatorship, involving plebiscites and powerful popular leaders.
Well, I am not sure that is how Mandy meant it at all. I think he meant that representative democracy was being replaced by Pluralism or even Corporatism. Wikipedia handily defines them thusly…
The political theory of pluralism holds that political power in society does not lie with the electorate, nor with a small concentrated elite, but is distributed between a wide number of groups. These groups may be trade unions, interest groups, business organizations, and any of a multitude of formal and informal coalitions.
Classical pluralism is the belief that politics and decision making is located mostly in the governmental framework, but many non-governmental groups are using their resources to exert influence. The central question for classical pluralism is how power is distributed in western democracies. Groups of individuals try to maximize their interests. Lines of conflict are multiple and shifting. There may be inequalities but they tend to be distributed and evened out. Any change under this view will be slow and incremental, as groups have different interests and may act as “veto groups” to destroy legislation that they do not agree with.
And this, I think, is Mandy’s point. Politics has descended into a consensual/centre-ground mush because ideology, principle and belief have vanished. In their place has come a welfarist agenda, whereby decisions have been reduced to cold mathematical calculations which determine the course of action which will maximise the welfare of society.
Under such a system of governance, the views of voters – the people – become unimportant as they are seen as only one component of assorted interest groups. In part this is a necessary evolution – often the general public’s understanding of particular issues and their detailed consequences is limited or non-existent.
However, I personally do not accept that it is desirable or necessary to view democracy in pluralist terms. Without question, it is necessary for politicians to consult widely among interest groups to gain an understanding of the impact of their proposals, but it should be the people, who exist, create and consume in the world, and who are thus integral to every part of the economic and social chain, who should be the pyramidal apex from which all democratic authority flows.
One man, one vote – a right from birth inherited by virtue of being a sovereign individual. What right do ‘interest groups’, whether trade unions, companies, charities, or other lobby groups have to enter the democratic process. Of course, in normal circumstances the existence of these groups and their lobbying of politicians to pursue their own interests is perfectly acceptable. The problem arises when politicians, over-burden by an over-sized state, become driven by the bureaucrats underneath them. Bureaucrats, calculating the optimal course of actions, weighing the input from these interest groups, seek compromise. And that is the nature of Bureaucracies.
Ministers ought, and need, to be the sole drivers in a material sense. Today they are not, and they can only ever be the sole drivers when their area of responsibility becomes manageable. Continual Cabinet re-shuffles, a government which is far too large and which does far too much, necessarily strips Ministers of this authority and reduces them to an ever smaller focus over the direction.
This process has been driving relentlessly over the last 60 years or so. Parliament has been emascualted, not so much by the EU per se, but by the very rot that created and which drives the EU. It is the reign of the bureaucrats which has emasculated politics and Parliament. It is this emasculation which has made the people apathetic and disinterested in politics, and it is this emasculation which has led the political parties to converge in an amorphous centrist blur on the political landscape. And it is this convergence which has led to personality politics, as this becomes the only remaining differentiators between parties.
When Mandy says representative democracy is over he is right. When Peter Obourne recognises the flaccidity of Parliament, he is right. Tyranny of bureaucracy is the enemy – the EU, political apathy, and a bloated state and merely symptoms of this fundamental ill. Until the cause is tackled, we can expect to become increasingly powerless in our own land.
European Army
Jun 23rd
Open Europe reports that German Interior Minister, Wolfgang Schäuble, has reaffirmed the commitment to a European Army on the BBC Hard Talk programme.
He was asked about his previous comments in favour of a common European army. He replied saying: “We had polls in different European countries and the question was ‘would you prefer a national army or a European army?’ and the outcome was about two-thirds for a European army. In Germany it’s quite clear, we don’t want the use of humanitarian force unilaterally, only together with our partners.”
When asked about potential British opposition to such an army, he said “We have to have respect for this, it’s quite clear. But the United Kingdom, it’s a pity but it’s the truth, has never been in the lead of European integration. Germany has to be in the lead of European integration… the general direction is undisputed in Germany… No major party has ever tried to get support by a eurosceptic general direction.”
Cheeky Lord Pearson
Jun 23rd
From Hansard…
Lord Dykes (Liberal Democrat)
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what conclusions they draw from the growing involvement of British expatriate candidates in theEuropean Parliament elections on 7 June in other European Union member states.
Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour)
My Lords, the Government welcome the fact that UK nationals and the nationals of other EU member countries actively exerted their rights under the Council directive of 6 December 1993 to vote and stand as candidates in other member states at the recent European Parliament elections and are actively participating in public life in their adopted country.
Lord Dykes (Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. Was it not gratifying to see the growing diaspora of people not only in general, but as candidates and political activists mainly in Spain, France, Italy and Germany, but in other countries too, where the British diaspora resides not only presumably as patriotic British citizens but as enthusiastic citizens of the European Union? That was decided by the then Conservative Government under the Maastricht treaty, in sad contrast to the antics of the Conservative Party which is now joining up with extreme right wing neo-cons of a peculiar bent in some countries, who are unable to join any consensus in the European Parliament for future progress.
Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour)
My Lords, the noble Lord’s last point is truly astonishing. His earlier point is also interesting. At least five people from other EU states, who are resident in Britain, stood in the British elections to the European Parliament. The wonderful, delightful irony is that the only one who was successful belonged to the United Kingdom Independence Party.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch (UKIP)
My Lords, in that case I take it that the Government welcome the election of the EU’s former chief accountant, Marta Andreasen, to the European Parliament. I shall repeat a question that I asked on Thursday 18 June, which was not answered at the time. Has theMinister read her new book, Brussels Laid Bare? If so, does he believe that that book will do anything to endear the project of European integration to the British people?
Lord Bach (Lords in Waiting, HM Household; Labour)
My Lords, I am afraid that I have not had the opportunity of reading the lady’s book, but I plan to take it on holiday with me to Portugal. Whether I will get round to it, I am not sure.
One can’t help but snigger at that. I would have liked Lord Pearson to have responded asking whether Lord Bach felt that in light of the fact UKIP was the only party to have successfully elected a non-British citizen that accusations of xenophobia are unfounded and whether she believes members of either House who have made such accusation should retract and apologise for their statements?
Maybe he could have also asked whether the Minister would like a signed copy?
