Are UKIP The New Judas Goats?

I have been in two minds whether to publish this post or not. While it may not always be apparent on this blog, I tend to pull my punches when it comes to criticism of UKIP.  And I do so out of deference to the many hard working UKIP volunteers on the ground (of which I have also been one of them). They are the unsung heroes of the cause- the backbone of the party.

On the other hand there is also the consideration that some issues within UKIP need to be addressed – the issues that fundamentally, and possibly fatally, undermine the very same hard work by volunteers. It saddens me and frustrates me greatly.

I rejoined UKIP just over a year ago – albeit reluctantly - trying to help out with the impending local elections in May 2013. My membership now over a year old expired last month and I have taken the reluctant decision to let it lapse without renewing it.

The final straw for me I guess was Farage’s recent description of the 2010 manifesto as “drivel”:

"Malcolm Pearson, who was leader at the time, was picked up in interviews for not knowing the manifesto.

"Of course he didn't - it was 486 pages of excessive detail. Eighteen months ago I said I want the whole lot taken down, we reject the whole thing...

"I didn't read it. It was drivel. It was 486 pages of drivel...It was a nonsense. We have put that behind us and moved onto a professional footing."

This would be the same "drivel" manifesto that Farage and Lord Pearson signed and approved of:

Mr Farage signed the foreword to the 2010 manifesto as the "chief party spokesman," along with Lord Pearson and Mr Campbell Bannerman.

The clue here though is David Campbell Bannerman, the man who drew up the 2010 document, and then later defected back to the Tories.

As a consequence under intense questioning from BBC's Andrew Neil, Farage decided to make a personal dig at Campbell Bannerman by dismissing the manifesto in derogatory terms. For the sake of the party he could have instead played a straight bat and simply argued that UKIP had moved on from 2010. But the personal dig was evidently more important – further evidence that UKIP is Nigel Farage’s plaything.

Nothing demonstrates Farage's priorities more clearly than when he is prepared to effective dismiss for personal gain, not only the work of those who spent their time drawing up the manifesto, but the hundreds of UKIP volunteers (in the main) who stood in 2010 in front of hustings meetings, and knocked on doors, defending that manifesto.

Only now are they to be told that Nigel thinks it was all "drivel" despite him approving it at the time and standing at the last election on its promises. Well thanks a lot Nigel... for knowingly sending out hard-working volunteers to the electorate with nothing more than “drivel” to defend themselves. His comments are quite a smack in the face to UKIP members from the “Dear Leader”.

With no surprise the fallout from Farage's comments has already happened, UKIP supporters' arguments are now easily dismissed by using their leader's remarks, as Dr Eric Edmond observed:

Click on link to call Clegg to see how the Lib Dems are profiting from Farage's stupidity. The relevant call is about 10 minutes into the tape. Clegg was able to brush off a UKIP supporter by simply refering him to Farage's denouncing of the 2010 manifesto and decent honest hard working UKIP members.

All that hard work undone by one interview. And, as to the next manifesto for 2015, how do we know that this one won't be "drivel" as well? It's certain that Farage will be asked whether the next manfesto is "drivel"; questions will be asked as to its content in those terms.

Then reflecting on the running theme throughout UKIP's history we have another example of "falling out with Nigel", by Nigel's drinking partner Godfrey Bloom no less: Godfrey Bloom has hit out at Nigel Farage for scrapping Ukip's 2010 manifesto, saying the party has adopted a "no-policy policy":

In a strongly-worded warning to his former colleagues, the independent MEP said the party was turning into a "don't-frighten-the-horses, all-things-to-all-men, pale blue party. The current lurch to the no-policy policy will damage Ukip in 2015,"

Nigel seems to have developed an unhealthy habit of "falling out" with people; UKIP's history is littered with many many examples. Thus Bloom's comments resonate. Though it's worth noting that Bloom was quite happy to take the shilling while on board the EU gravy train without complaint and many of his troubles have been brought upon himself by himself.

We have evidence of UKIP's "no-policy policy" when we come to the recent flooding, particularly in the Somerset Levels which has dominated the headlines. As Richard North and Booker have demonstrated there is a very significant EU dimension to the Somerset floodings. This is a complete open goal for UKIP if ever there was one regarding how our country is run - low hanging fruit in plain sight.

It's a chance for Farage and UKIP to lead the media debate, a chance to fully expose normally secret EU laws, a chance to reveal the damage EU laws are having on our country when flooding has and will dominate the headlines for weeks. But no, Farage chooses not to despite being informed of the details. Instead the leader of the UK's most prominent Eurosceptic party has this to say (via Autonomous Mind):

I don’t know the truth to the extent the Environment Agency is now bound by European Union rules and laws, I just don’t know, which is why we need to have a public inquiry.

That is an astonishingly pathetic response. Where's the detail? Where's the research?

What is clear is that UKIP - by its leader's actions - is removing itself from the EU debate. The question is why? We are reminded of Dan Hannan who indulges in convoluted intellectual gymnastics to pretend he supports exit from the EU but acknowledges as a consequence inadvertently that his priority is power which comes via his membership of his party.

In light of Farage's deep reluctance to highlight the EU's involvement in the current flooding crisis, does one conclude he doesn’t want to upset the establishment after all? Is he a Judas goat - not really wanting EU exit because it would not mean being a member of this or does he really want to become a member of this.

Like many I voted, and joined UKIP, because I had no other political home to go to with regard to EU membership. Sadly as an opponent of our membership of the EU, the clear policy of UKIP to now vacate that arena means I no longer really have anyone to vote for at all.

Farage's current actions are a betrayal of the hard working volunteers; they - we - deserve much better.

Membership Is 'Our' Choice.

Visionary, administrator, public figure, private adviser, Jean Monnet played a leading role in the conception and creation of the European Community. His constructive ideas and tireless activity have been a constant source of inspiration to those engaged on building a new Europe. Our future freedom, peace and prosperity will owe much to his genius. Edward Heath November 1977.

The above quote helps to demonstrate that our membership of the EU, as I've touched on before, is because our own political class wish it. Ted Heath knew what the project was about and still took us in and eagerly 'picked up the soap' on behalf of our country to do so. No Prime Minister since has taken us out, and instead each, ever since, has engaged in a perpetual war of deception to keep us in.

We are members because this country's political class wishes it even against the sentiments of its own people. It chooses to. The EU never used trebuchets to knock down our castle walls, instead we lowered the drawbridge, invited them in and gave them the best rooms whilst telling them that they could stay as long as they like. Here's an example of my point from the European Union (Amendment) Bill and the Lisbon Treaty: Implications for the UK Constitution (page 27) in 2007-8 (my emphasis):

We conclude that the Lisbon Treaty would make no alteration to the current relationship between the principles of primacy of European Union law and parliamentary sovereignty. The introduction of a provision explicitly confirming Member States’ right to withdraw from the European Union underlines the point that the United Kingdom only remains bound by European Union law as long as Parliament chooses to remain in the Union.

The House of Lords Constitution Committee decided that Lisbon was not unconstitutional because ultimately Parliament could decide to reverse the process should it choose. That we remain members against the wishes of the British people means, in conclusion, the actual fault line lies between us the people and Parliament, not between us the people and Brussels. The need for the Harrogate Agenda hopes to address this fault line.

The EU does not force us to be members and nor will it force us to remain members if we want to leave. They don't force rule upon us, instead our establishment chose to be ruled by Brussels. A crucial difference.

In many ways the signs are that the EU has had enough of us being the awkward partner. The impending treaty designed to try to fix the Eurozone crisis, by virtue of making the next step towards European unity, will essentially exclude us from the inner core. We will be left on the sidelines whether we like it or not. The Independent (a Europhile paper) emphases this point the EU is fed up of us:

Germany and France don’t want a “Brexit”. But, talking to their officials in the margins of yesterday’s failed EU summit, I was struck how increasingly fed up they are with what they see as the UK’s self-centered, peripheral demands as they struggle with an existential crisis. The chances of Britain securing big wins like opting out of the social chapter of workers’ rights are described as “less than zero”. The days when Germany and France will go an extra mile to help Britain may be coming to an end. That is a dangerous moment. Mr Cameron insists he does not want the UK to leave the EU. 

So they'll be glad to see the back of us. And it's with this in mind that we come to EU exit. As Christopher Booker says (my emphasis):

The belief that we can repatriate powers we have given away to the EU is a sure sign that whoever voices it hasn’t really got a clue as to what the EU is about. The most sacred rule of the “European project”, ever since it was launched in 1950, is that once a nation state has handed powers of governance to the centre they can never be given back. The last thing our European colleagues would be prepared to do at present, when all their attention is focused on driving on to ever greater union in a bid to save the doomed euro, is to discuss Britain’s wish to defy that rule by allowing us to opt out of treaty commitments we legally entered into. 

And this leads me on to Article 50 - the exit clause of the Lisbon Treaty. If we are to leave the EU we have no choice but to invoke it. To leave the EU, invoking it is first and foremost our international legal obligation under the Vienna Convention, because the Lisbon Treaty is an international treaty. It also means that the EU is bound by the same international laws as we are when negotiating an exit.

Just repealing the ECA 1972 (which took us in), and hoping it simply takes us out is no longer possible. In the 40 years hence, much integration has taken place - in the form of many treaties passed subsequently, such as notoriously Maastricht. Clearly then repealing an act of Parliament 40 years ago, based on a so-called 'Common Market' is no longer relevant to us now, too much water (and EU law) has passed under the bridge.

It's precisely because the EU is all encompassing and makes most of our laws that we have to negotiate with the EU an orderly exit. Because if we get rid of one set of terms and conditions by leaving, then clearly we need another set of t's & c's in order to trade from outside, for example; trade, mobile phone roaming, telecommunciations, postage, cashpoint machines, bank transactions, landing slots for aircraft - all of which currently come under EU law. Come out without agreeing essentially a new contract and all of these will cease to happen between us and the EU from day one of our exit. A wonderful situation to be in the current economic crisis!

Yet some still see Article 50 as a trap - a way of keeping us in forever. But not possible, because of Section 3 of Article 50 (page 46) which states quite clearly (my emphasis):

3. The Treaties shall cease to apply to the State in question from the date of entry into force of the withdrawal agreement or, failing that, two years after the notification referred to in paragraph 2, unless the European Council, in agreement with the Member State concerned, unanimously decides to extend this period.

This in short makes clear that either we agree a settlement with the EU or, regardless of the changes in EU voting in November 2014, in absence of such an agreement we exit by default. The only price to pay is a wait of 2 years. In my view after 40 years, another two years as members with a definite exit date is a small price to pay, rather than the false promises of 'sometime in the future but really never' situation we have now.

As such because there's an arbitrary 2 year deadline in invoking Article 50 we actually shift the balance of power towards us. As an example, the US President. Limited to 2 terms in effect Obama will only serve 2 years de facto now he's been re-elected. Power is intangible; it strolls towards us but runs away. By imposing such an artificial arbituarty line restricting the President to be elected again, via the American constitution, it removes on his behalf the threat of another re-election which drains him of power towards the end of his term - rendering him a lame duck.

And so it proves with Article 50. It puts the EU on the back foot...because the deadline renders them powerless not us. For example (Article 50 (4) page 46)

4. For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3, the member of the European Council or of the Council representing the withdrawing Member State shall not participate in the discussions of the European Council or Council or in decisions concerning it.

In other words during the exit process we are banned from further interaction with EU processes. So what? We'll continue to be subject to all EU directives, regulations and decisions with no input, which makes very little difference to what happens now, but crucially we can now ignore them. Due to the time limit - the power drains away from the EU - because there's no way they can enforce any breach. By the time a breach by us, in terms of us ignoring them, is brought before the European Court of Justice, we'll be long gone and outside their jurisdiction.

Thus article 50 allows Cameron to renegotiate our relationship with the EU, allows him to maintain our trade with the EU with minimal disruption, and by nationalising all EU laws into British ones (with a view to unpicking them later) from day one make the transition from EU member to non-EU member seamless.

That he doesn't is his choice...but it's not ours.

Tory Admits MPs Want EU Rule

From Lords Hansard:

Asked by Lord Pearson of Rannoch:

To ask Her Majesty's Government, further to the Written Answer by Lord Howell of Guildford to Lord Tebbit on 10 November (WA 80), what areas of United Kingdom national sovereignty have been transferred to European Union competence since 1972 under (a) majority voting, and (b) unanimity, in the Council of Ministers; and what areas remain under the sole control of Parliament.[HL4192]

(My emphasis below):

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Lord Howell of Guildford): No areas of competence have been transferred from the UK to the EU under majority voting or unanimity in the Council of Ministers. The limits of EU competence are clearly set out in the EU treaties, and only an amendment of the EU treaties can transfer any competence to or from the EU.

Parliament is sovereign; and EU law has effect in the UK because-and solely because-Parliament wills that it should. The EU Bill currently before Parliament includes a clause which seeks to place on a statutory footing this common-law principle.

So there it is in black and white, Conservative Lord Howell of Guildford admits that Parliament could say no but doesn't. We can remove ourselves from EU competences, and EU governance, (though now slightly more difficult) if only our MPs knew what a spine looks like.

A Waste Of Time

This question from Lords Hansard:

To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will encourage or require the installation of closed circuit television cameras in abattoirs.

I'll be honest and admit that my first response to reading this was; why? Are they trying to catch which pig is nicking the biscuits? Anyway it's to do with animal welfare so not an ignoble cause. The subsequent debate trundles along for a few minutes arguing pros and cons until we get the real answer:

My Lords, we have no power to insist that every abattoir should have CCTV, and that will be made even clearer when the latest EU regulation, Regulation 1099/2009, comes into effect.

That's right. The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Henley) is admitting that the Government has "no power".

What's the point of Parliament again?

EU External Action Service

There were a few questions and comments yesterday in the Lords regarding the progress in setting up the replacement for the UK's Foreign and Commonwealth Office. Lord Howell of Guildford asks, in a follow up question (my emphasis):

Did he hear Javier Solana's view that this is going to be "the biggest diplomatic service in the world"? Has he noticed that, since the Lisbon treaty came into force, 54 new super-delegations, previously EU embassies or delegations, have been set up around the world? To whom will this enormous force be accountable, what will it cost and how much of the impact will fall on the already squeezed Foreign Office budget?

Lord Brett replies:

My Lords, we are looking not at the creation of a major new entity but at the reorganisation of the current external representation of the European Union into a much more coherent and effective body.

It's not often that the words 'European Union' and 'coherent' are used in the same sentence. Of course the best way of making the External (non) Action Service more coherent and effective would be to abolish it. Lord Brett continues:

It is not yet possible to give a detailed breakdown of costs.

No I bet it isn't, rest assured though it ain't gonna be cheap.

Any costs would have to be held within the overall EU budget for financial perspectives, which is €49.8 billion, but we are committed, in the form of Cathy Ashton's high level committee, to producing results by April this year, which is not far away. I regret to say that I do not have them at the moment.

Notably Lord Brett avoids the part of the question regarding accountability, though I think we can all guess the answer to that one. There then follows a couple of questions on the staffing of the EAS noting a desire that appointments are based on merit, not because they are French. UKIP's Lord Pearson then asks:

Can the noble Lord give us a clear assurance that there will be any British embassies left in 10 years' time? If he can give that assurance, will he tell us where they will be? If he does not have the answer at his fingertips, would he be good enough to put a letter in the Library?

A pretty fair question given the concerns. But no, apparently not:

My Lords, I used to listen to with great interest, and enjoy, the questions of the noble Lord and the expertise and perseverance he showed on Europe. However, since he became leader of UKIP, his questions have got more esoteric and strange; I can think of no stranger one than this.

Lord Brett didn't answer that inconvenient question either, Lord Brett may have considered the question strange but that doesn't negate the fact that the answer to it could be 'none'.

It's clear that Lord Pearson is now regarded as enfant terrible in the political world; anyone with a desire to exit the EU must regarded as somewhat peculiar. Your Freedom and Ours cites another example here in a different debate, on climate change:

Nevertheless, Lord Brett, the Minister in question summoned his vituperative powers:

I am afraid that I consider that to be quite a long way from the Question on the Order Paper. The noble Lord seems to be becoming on climate change what the noble Lord, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, has become on Europe.

So there we are: you want to insult a peer you compare him or her to the Lord Pearson of Rannoch, than whom there is no one more terrible in the eyes of the Ministers.

Shocking isn't it that anyone could possibly hold a different opinion to Lord Brett.

Is the Government stalling on Prisoner Voting Rights?

John Hirst, who was convicted of killing his landlady with an axe, has long campaigned for voting rights for prisoners, something which I fundamentally object to, and I would imagine so would a large proportion of the British public.

As part of his fight, Hirst took the the issue to the European Court of Human Rights, but despite winning in 2005, the UK Government has yet to implement the Court's judgment 4 years later, much to the frustration of the Council of Europe's Committee of Ministers.

In a recent Interim Resolution, the CoM has not only indicated its frustration at the substantial delay, but also that the next GE election faces a significant risk of failing to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights.

So is the Government deliberately stalling and does it intend to grant prisoner's the right to vote in advance of the next election?

Given that granting voting rights to prisoners is unlikely to be...er...very popular, any delay would be entirely understandable, Tom Harris MP certainly thinks so (my emphasis in bold):

Do I give a stuff that the Council of Europe is a bit annoyed at the UK for (ahem!) dragging our feet on implementing the court’s ruling? No, not really.

However, the issue of the ECHR's judgment, and the Government's slow response was raised in the House of Lords yesterday, and after some protracted non-answers by Lord Bach, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State in the Ministry of Justice, was this exchange (again me in bold):

Lord Pannick: My Lords, does the Minister accept that one reason for the considerable concern about the extraordinary length of time that the Government have taken to implement a decision dated 6 October 2005 is that they appear deliberately to be delaying this matter until after the next general election? Can the Minister give the House an unequivocal assurance that that is no part and has been no part of the Government's motivation?

Lord Bach: Yes.

So whom to believe?