EU Referendum

Our readers will possibly recall the story of the fragrant Commissar, Margot Wallström deciding to do a spot of moonlighting from her highly paid job. In March the new leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin welcomed Margot back into Swedish politics. The fluffy fragrant one was going to be part of a committee that would decide on the party’s foreign and EU policies before the next European elections in 2009 and the next Swedish elections in 2010. (Not that elections matter in the European Union as the legislation just goes on and on according to a multiannual plan.)

Hmmm, we said at the time, how is this possible? Are the Commissars not legally bound to be independent? The UKIP MEP for London, Gerard Batten, put down some written questions in the Toy Parliament. This was Written Question 1717/07:

Subject: Commissioner Margot Wallström and national politics

When members of the Commission take office they swear to ‘perform their duties in complete independence in the general interests of the Communities’, and ‘to refrain from any action incompatible with their duties’.

According to 'The Local', Sweden’s news in English, the new leader of the Social Democrats, Mona Sahlin, announced that EU Commissioner Margot Wallström is to sit on a working group committee to develop the party’s foreign and EU policies.

Mrs Wallström is reported to have said, 'Yes it is (true), but I cannot take on a formal position and sit on a board. But everyone in the Commission is politically active and I think that only enriches our work. I will continue my work with full impartiality'.

1. Is this report accurate? Is Mrs Wallström taking up a position, even part-time, on, or advising, a committee of the Swedish Social Democratic Party?

2. If so, how is this compatible with the undertaking given by Commissioners when they take office?

3. Are any other Commissioners 'active in politics' as alleged by Mrs Wallström? If so, who are they, and what is the nature of their involvement?

4. If the Commission answers positively to question 3, what measures does the Commission intend to take to ensure that the Commissioners comply with their undertaking to act only in the interests of the European Union during their time of office? Or, does working within national politics to promote the European Union comply with that undertaking?

Although he asked the question two months ago, the response came only today. To say that it is evasive is to understate matters somewhat. Mr Batten tells me that this is the fate of all his questions. The answers he gets, when he finally receives them give nothing at all. In fact, he sees little point to asking questions in the Toy Parliament unless some particular issue needs to be brought out.

I am encouraging him to go on asking questions. Then we can publicize questions and answers on this blog. Anyway, here is the response, for what it is worth.

Apart from Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty, which provides for the general obligations of independence incumbent on Members of the Commission for the protection of the general interest of the Community, the Code of Conduct for Commission Members contains a number of specific provisions relating to their political activities and their involvement in election campaigns .

Commissioners may be active members of political parties or trade unions, provided that this does not compromise their availability for service in the Commission.

As the Commission has said so often, Members are political men and women. In the performance of their duties they are required to work for the general interest of the Communities and are not allowed to take any instructions, but they are free to attend political meetings provided, of course, that this is not detrimental to their availability at all times as Members of the Commission.

Well, well, well. Let us have a look at Article 213(2) of the EC Treaty, the latter being the fons et origo of all EC/EU legislation.

The Members of the Commission shall, in the general interest of the Community, be completely independent in the performance of their duties.

In the performance of these duties, they shall neither seek nor take instructions from any government or from any other body. They shall refrain from any action incompatible with their duties. Each Member State undertakes to respect this principle and not to seek to influence the Members of the Commission in the performance of their tasks.

The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not. When entering upon their duties they shall give a solemn undertaking that, both during and after their term of office, they will respect the obligations arising therefrom and in particular their duty to behave with integrity and discretion as regards the acceptance, after they have ceased to hold office, of certain appointments or benefits. In the event of any breach of these obligations, the Court of Justice may, on application by the Council or the Commission, rule that the Member concerned be, according to the circumstances, either compulsorily retired in accordance with Article 216 or deprived of his right to a pension or other benefits in its stead.

Ahem, what is that at the beginning of the third paragraph?

The Members of the Commission may not, during their term of office, engage in any other occupation, whether gainful or not.

Would that occupation include writing national policies for one’s party back home? “When I use a word,” – said Humpty Dumpty, - “it means what I want it to mean.”

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: commission, EU parliament, Margot Wallström, UKIP

Asked by Nigel Farage – who does have some use, occasionally - whether the Boy King could lead us into the sunlit uplands by taking us out of the Social Chapter, no less than el presidente Barroso responded on behalf of the EU commission, telling the UKIP leader:

The Commission assumes that when the Honourable Member refers to the Social Chapter in the Treaties, he is referring to the social provisions contained in the articles 136 to 145 of the EC Treaty. These provisions are part of the whole Treaty and cannot be isolated. All Member States are bound by the Treaties they have signed and ratified and which have entered into force, including the social provisions they contain. Consequently, a withdrawal from these provisions by a Member State would require an amendment of the EC Treaty in accordance with Article 48 of the Treaty on European Union.

That's rather shot Cameron's fox, methinks.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: David Cameron, UKIP

There can be no hiding place left for MEP Tom Wise, and it looks like he knows it, having been spotted back in the UK, leaving early after being suspended from the UKIP EU parliamentary group today.

Daniel Foggo of The Sunday Times has done for him, gaining an admission from the MEP that he used £6,500 of the money embezzled from his EU secretarial fund to buy a used car. The car was a dark green Peugeot 406 saloon and the W-registration diesel vehicle is still owned by Wise.

The admission contradicts previous UKIP statements that the cash had not benefited Wise personally. These first emerged following an earlier internal inquiry under the former party leader Roger Knapman, who insisted that, "On all the evidence that I have seen, I can say that at no time has Tom Wise personally benefited in any way nor has he ever intended to. His intentions have been honest and honourable throughout."

Even three days ago, Foggo was telling us that Farage was holding the line, insisting that MEP had not benefited from the scam personally. Now, he is suggesting that perhaps his earlier judgement was "generous".

In the context, the use of the word "judgement" might be considered generous especially as Wise, in addition to buying his car from taxpayers' funds, also made other payments from his EU account, including several four-figure sums. The words "cover-up" are being muttered in some quarters. Too many people were prepared to present the man as a fool when, in fact, they knew him to be a thief.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: UKIP

Following the weekend publicity, now, according to a news release from UKIP, MEPs have today decided to suspend Tom Wise (seen here discussing his future with a colleague) from the UK Independence Party group in the European Parliament, "for failure to provide information regarding alleged financial irregularities that are now under investigation by OLAF (the European Anti Fraud Office)".

Party Chairman John Whittaker said, "This decision should in no way be interpreted as prejudicial to the outcome of that enquiry. The decision was taken at a meeting of the MEPs in Brussels," said Dr. Whittaker, "which was the first opportunity we have had to discuss this matter."

From the high in 2004, when 12 UKIP MEPs were returned by the electorates, this now reduces the number holding the whip to nine. And, by next week, there may be more in the frame.

Not entirely unrelated, Guardian is reporting that three of Party's MEPs are on the verge of walking out of the party, prompted by the decision to suspend Wise.

Sources indicate that these MEPs are concerned at the cracks in the previously solid front which had Farage maintaining, of Wise, "We did not believe there had been any intent of fraud."

Despite Whittaker's careful statement, Wise's suspension is de facto recognition that he was fraudulent in the appropriation of his EU expenses. But what concerns the MEPs is that the Party's action implicitly condemns practices which other have also been involved in, weakening any defences they may have in the future.

Whatever the outcome of further investigations, however, UKIP - as my colleague points out - is a very necessary force in British politics. Party officials need to get grip, firmly and decisively, before, like the ten green bottles, there are no MEPs left standing.

On the other hand, there was a variation of that old song, which substituted ten sticks of dynamite standing on the wall. And if one stick of dynamite should accidentally fall, the song went, there'd be no sticks of dynamite and no b****y wall. That may yet be the fate of UKIP.

UPDATE

The Times names two of the MEPs at odds with Farage over the suspension of Wise – Roger Knapman, the former Party leader, and Mike Natrass. The third is believed to be Gerald Batten, UKIP's London MEP.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: UKIP

Given the weight of adverse media coverage over the weekend, UKIP has emerged relatively unscathed today, with only The Daily Telegraph making anything of the stories in the Monday press.

However, while some of the focus has been on the machinations of the not very wise Tom Wise and the Bown donations by far the greater long-term threat is an investigation into the ways MEPs have spent their £125,000 annual assistants’ allowance.

Should they have been shown to have broken the rules, the ten UKIP MEPs could be individually liable for repayments, perhaps amounting to £200,000 or more, for each of them. By contrast, the Electoral Commission threat to recover £350,000 from the Party is relatively small beer.

This has not stopped a few die-hard UKIPites complaining that they are being unfairly treated, but on the UKIP Forum, there is also some recognition that the inept leadership is at least in part responsible for the woes the Party is currently experiencing.

That the Party hierarchy is largely the author of its own misfortunes is most evident in the treatment of its payments to Party workers using EU money.

That money is actually ring-fenced fund to pay for staff to assist MEPs in their duties. The sum is relatively high because it is recognised that they have to maintain offices in the EU parliament and in their home countries. Thus, an MEP is quite entitled to employ staff in the home country, to carry out a diverse range of functions.

What an MEP is not allowed to do, however, is spend that money on employing workers whose sole (or main) duties are party political - as has been the case with UKIP.

To an extent, every Party does "stretch" the system but UKIP have been rather blatant in what they have been doing, thus inviting a reaction. If that was their intent, they can hardly be surprised when it comes.

Had the Party been a little more intelligent in how it managed its affairs, it could have achieved the same end, without falling foul of the rules. For instance, there was no need to use the "assistants" fund directly to pay for Party staff.

One alternative would be to levy a large precept on the MEPs' salaries - which they are free to spend as they wish - and then have the individual MEPs hire close relatives (wife or some such) as an assistant, to make up the deficiency, the sums obviously going into the household budgets.

Another option is for the Party to take a substantial percentage of the "assistance" and office expenses funds to pay for head office costs and staff, who rightly can be said to be carrying out group administrative functions which have direct relevance to the MEPs. This is what the Tories do. Monies that would then otherwise be spent on head office functions could be diverted to pay for party workers in the regions.

However, the Party set up a system in 1999 which it knew to be against the rules but, on such a small scale that it felt (probably rightly) that it would not be noticed. With ten MEPs and a higher profile, that was never going to be the case. But instead of rethinking the system - and borrowing ideas from other (more experienced) parties - UKIP persevered with a scheme that was almost bound to cause them grief.

For them then to complain is rather akin to standing up in the middle of an active battlefield and waving your arms around and then protesting that you get shot. In short, UKIP's behaviour has invited what is very close to a self-inflicted injury.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: UKIP

It is a long while since we revisited the case of Tom Wise the UKIP MEP (pictured in the EU parliament chamber in Brussels with his friends), who was associated in 2005 with rather unsavoury financial irregularities amounting, effectively, to fraud.

Today, however, he is back in the news, this time in The Sunday Times, in a front-page story written by Daniel Foggo, headed: "UKIP in embezzlement scandal".

Much of the detail is similar to the original investigation into Wise's affairs in 2005, also by Foggo, then working for The Sunday Telegraph. At the time, this revealed that Wise had charged to his EU expenses £36,000 for the services of a research assistant, but had only paid her £6,000. A follow-up article weeks later, claimed that Wise was to pay back a refund of £21,000.

From Foggo now we learn that Wise is officially under investigation by the EU's anti-fraud office, OLAF and that the sum he originally channelled into his own bank account was nearer £40,000

Potentially, writes Foggo, this is the most serious crisis to hit UKIP, more so coming after the action by the Electoral Commission. While that episode is being dismissed as a "clerical error", Wise's actions have the hallmarks of deliberate fraud.

What has been clearly established is that Wise set up a scam to circumvent EU rules preventing MEPs claiming their £125,000 annual staff expenses personally, by requiring them to be paid either directly to the employees or through a third-party "agent". MEPs are not allowed to handle the money themselves.

Wise, who before his election had been a paying agent for his then boss, Geoffrey Titford MEP - and therefore had been very familiar with the rules - pretended that his own bank account was actually that of his researcher, Lindsay Jenkins - who claims on her own website to be an "investigative author and journalist". From November 2004 until October 2005 he funnelled £39,100 of taxpayers' money into his own account with the Cooperative Bank from which he paid Jenkins just £13,555.

Bank statements obtained by Foggo show that the only money coming into the account was from the EU, ostensibly for Jenkins. Wise's method was simple. He supplied the EU payments office with a contract, obtained by The Sunday Times, which included Jenkins's name and details and stipulated that she apparently wanted her money to be paid into her account, entitled "Stags". In fact, this account, the full name of which was "T Wise trading as Stags", was a business account run by the MEP himself.

But the breach of rules did not stop there. Some of the £13,555 paid to her was actually for work done on behalf of other party members, including UKIP leader Nigel Farage, who had agreed to fund the publication of a book written by Jenkins.

Then, during the same timespan, more than £19,000 of the money was steadily paid out from Wise's account to other destinations, some of them apparently credit cards. One disbursement alone, made via a transfer to somebody other than Jenkins, was for £6,500. And it has now been established that Wise also applied for other assistants' salaries to be paid through his bank account before the period involving Jenkins.

Faced with the highly embarrassing situation of one of their own implicated in fraud, back in 2005, the UK Independence Party – which makes a big noise about exposing EU fraud – was given plenty of opportunities to expose the fraudster in its midst, and distance itself from him. Collectively though, the MEPs and senior party officials – with not a little rancour – chose to close ranks, effectively endorsing (or at least, condoning) Wise's action.

Now their neglect is rebounding on them, as Wise is shown to be a serial embezzler, having maintained his position in the Party only through the tolerance of his dishonesty by his colleagues. Collectively, therefore, they are tarnished by his actions, and the name of the Party (such that it is) has been diminished.

However, if this is the case against Wise – with more to follow – Foggo may be wrong if he believes this to be, potentially, the most serious crisis to hit UKIP. Additionally, he reports that the Electoral Commission is going to launch a full review of UKIP's internal systems for dealing with their financial affairs and handling their statutory reporting requirements, noting that UKIP systematically flouts the spirit of EU rules, which forbid party workers from being paid with taxpayers' money. This is the line taken by the Sunday Telegraph in its story, as well as Foggo, both pursuing the story that the Party has been paying its regional organisers by designating them "advisers" and "assistants" to its 10 MEPs. By using this ploy, salaries of up to £40,000 a year have been paid from the MEPs' EU expenses, relying on the further fiction that they do their actual jobs "in their spare time".

Further details are set to be exposed because Denis Brookes, one of the party's former officials, issued industrial tribunal proceedings against Mike Nattrass, the party's MEP for the West Midlands region (pictured). It is understood that Brookes has stated in his claim for unfair dismissal that he was being paid to do one job while actually employed to do another one entirely, so that the party could secure EU funding for him.

If this is established, the party could find itself having to dismantle its entire Party structure and, as damaging, repaying the salaries of the regional organisers, going right back to 1999, when three UKIP MEP were first elected. It was then that the system was first devised of using MEP's personal expenses illegally to pay Party workers, in the expectation that Brussels-based officials would never check on the activities of staff based in the UK.

Given a clear intent to defraud taxpayers funds for Party purposes, carried out by all UKIP's MEPs, not only will they face the prospect of returning millions of pounds, but the possibility of criminal prosecutions as well.

Ironically, the latest local publicity from Wise has been devoted to opposing a new passport office in Luton because he says it would lead to "data rape". Now, it transpires that he and his colleagues have been doing something similar to the taxpayers. "Gang rape" might be a better way of putting it. What's left of the Party they have systematically sought to destroy might certainly agree.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: UKIP

The sum of £363,697 is to be demanded from the UKIP by the Electoral Commission, in an unprecedented move to recover "impermissible donations". The sum relates to 68 separate donations made by UKIP's key supporter, ex-bookie Alan Bown (pictured left), who gave the money for the 2005 general election campaign.

The Electoral Commission has established that, in contravention of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000, Bown was not on the UK electoral register for the period over which he gave the money – mostly through 2005. Under the Act, where parties receive donations which they are prohibited from accepting, the have 30 days from the date the donation was received to return, otherwise it is at risk of forfeiture.

The application of the law, made to prevent foreign backers bankrolling UK parties, has stunned UKIP. Bown had made his money in the UK, had paid British tax and, throughout the whole period, had been living in the UK.

The Commission has notified treasurer Bruce Lawson that it intends to apply to the Magistrates' Court for a "forfeiture" of the cash, which – if the Commission is successful - will then be paid into the "Consolidated Fund" and kept by the Treasury.

Technically, the treasurer has also committed an offence, punishable on summary conviction by a £5,000 fine or 6 months imprisonment. The Commission has not indicated that it intends to proceed with any such case.

UKIP leader, MEP Nigel Farage (right of picture) has indicated that the Party will fight the forfeiture claim, not least because, if it is forced to pay the money, it will be bankrupt. Insiders believe it would then be very hard for the Party to survive.

However, the demise is by no means certain as the Magistrates are afforded discretion under the law as to whether they make a forfeiture order. Under the circumstances, they may consider a technical offence not to warrant such an action.

The party also faces fines totalling £1,500 for filing its accounts "unacceptably" late – six months after an already extended deadline - while Farage's South East Region is to be fined £500 for being more than six months late with its accounts.. The Commission also said that it was to review UKIP's "systems for dealing with its financial affairs and meeting statutory reporting requirements".

And, in a separate move – reported by The Financial Times - a major Tory donor has withdrawn support for what he terms the "red herring" UKIP, in what is seen as a boost to the Boy King in containing threats of defections from his party's right-wing.

This is Lord Kalms, who had warned earlier this year that he would consider voting for UKIP. But he now tells the FT that he now considers the party "a bit of a red herring… I'm not going to give them money".

Under siege last weekend from two Sunday newspapers, and with further investigations threatened, from the police (over certain sexual irregularities) and from the EU's anti-fraud office, OLAF, it is no understatement to say that the party is not having a happy time of things at the moment.

No wonder Nigel Farage has been seen tired and emotional in Strasbourg recently.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: UKIP

What does the Conservative Party and the BNP have in common? Well, this week, both took a potshot at the UK Independence Party over its voting record in the EU parliament.

Said the Tory website, “UKIP's Farage is far from dolphin friendly”, pointing out that the Party had voted against proposals to introduce a uniform definition of driftnets to help control and enforce restrictions and so further protect dolphins and whales.

Fisheries spokesman for the Conservatives in the EU parliament Struan Stevenson said: "Driftnets have been banned in the EU for several years now. This proposal tightens up procedures. UKIP clearly doesn't care for dolphins."

Then along came the BNP with an article on its website headed, “UKIP votes against dolphin protection!”

MEPs representing the increasingly discredited and irrelevant United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) have, incredibly, voted against an animal welfare measure designed to stop dolphins and porpoises being needlessly killed, intoned the site.

With two of the Sunday broadsheets also featuring UKIP this weekend, members could be forgiven for feeling that they are being got at. But when the Tories and BNP get together, that has to be a first.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: BNP, Tories, UKIP

By the time the "colleagues" have finished with their smoking bans all over Europe, it looks as if the only place smoking will be permitted inside a public building throughout the whole of the EU is in … the EU Parliament.

That the parliament buildings are now havens for smokers is not for want of trying. On 1 January, the 16-strong committee of presidents actually banned smoking, only to find that the ban was extensively flouted by both MEPs and staff. Bowing to reality, therefore, the committee – which has 12 smoking members – voted to rescind the ban.

This action is hardly surprising – the parliament has always had an ambivalent attitude to smoking. The first time I ever visited the building in Brussels, way back in 1996, the first thing to greet visitors was a reception clerk sitting under a "no smoking" sign, with a cigarette on the go.

Now, the Sunday Times has picked up the story and records Deborah Arnott, director of the antismoking campaign group, Ash, describing the latest decision as "scandalous". "There can be no justification for politicians to place themselves above the law and it makes a mockery of the commission's proposals for an EU-wide smoking ban," she says.

One unrepentant rebel is UKIP leader Nigel Farage who told The Times: "I have been ignoring it since January 1 and I have smoked in more places than before. I don't want to be told by PC people what I can and cannot do." But then, as both the Sunday Times and the Sunday Telegraph record today, Farage leads a party that is no stranger to rule-breaking.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: EU parliament, UKIP

This is Lavinia Sandru, a candidate for May's MEP elections in Romania. She is currently an MP in the Partidul Initiativa Nationala (PIN). Without a blush, therefore, we can say that she is set (we hope) to become the EU parliament's newest PIN-up.

If that happy event occurs, she will also one of the newest recruits to the Eurosceptic Ind-Dem Group in the EU parliament, home of, amongst others, the UK Independence Party MEPs, headed by Nigel Farage.

There is already, we understand, considerable competition amongst the male members of the group to obtain a specimen of Ms Sandru's business card.

There has been no reaction from the Europhile Lib-Dems in the EU parliament, who recently had to resort to a comic book heroine in order to inject some glamour into their lives.

Thus they have invented the fictional Elisa Correr, an MEP who gets embroiled in a risky and fascinating adventure whilst in pursuit of her parliamentary activities.

When it comes to glamour though, it seems the Eurosceptics are ready to upstage them by producing the real thing. Why, they might be asking, should the Devil have all the best figures?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: EU parliament, UKIP

In a council by-election in Nuneaton & Bedworth yesterday, the "extreme right wing" BNP came in second with 31.15 percent of the vote, only narrowly beaten by the incumbent Labour, which took the seat with 37.54 percent.

One should never draw conclusions from one set of results – especially from local by-elections. But this was a hard-fought contest, where the turnout was 36.08 percent despite the heavy snow, compared with the 20 percent that might have been expected.

The Conservatives managed a mere 17.17 percent, the Lib-Dems 6.79 percent and UKIP a pathetic 0.45 percent, accounting for exactly eight votes. They were even beaten by the English Democrats, who pulled 75 votes.

BNP's vote compares favourably with its share of the vote in Bradford during last May's local authority elections, when it achieved 27.5 percent of the vote in the wards which they contested.

As results like this continue to drift in, we are seeing more and more a broad-based rejection of the mainstream political parties, with voters turning to the minnows. In the north and the midlands (and some parts of London), BNP is the front-runner. Elsewhere, UKIP is getting some of the votes.

Yet again, the Boy King, who must capture these disillusioned voters, if he is to form a government, is not making the progress.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: BNP, Tories, UKIP

Farage says he is going to re-name UKIP to pick up the disaffected Tories, the disaffected Tories are planning to publish an alternative manifesto and the population at large (or some of it) is telling the politicos "a plague on all your houses".

Any which way you look at it, the Boy isn't exactly setting UK politics alight, is he?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: Tories, UKIP

In the latest issue of eurofacts Lord Pearson or Rannoch and Lord Willoughby de Broke, of whose decision to abandon the Conservative Party in favour of UKIP we have written before, have published their political statement. Together with the editor of eurofacts we have decided to reproduce it here in full, as we think our readers would be interested, though some have, undoubtedly, seen it before.



COMMENT THREAD

Labels: House of Lords, Tories, UKIP

Even after a few days closeted in the warm embrace of the EU parliament in Brussels - where each of the MEPs' offices have beds and so much is provided under the one roof that you could live out your life in the building and never again feel the sun on your skin – the political news from the UK seems unreal.

A few days more and the mind-numbingly dull machinations of the "toy" parliament begin to look interesting and, if you try hard enough, you can even convince yourself that they are important.

I can thus imagine how British politics must look to the average American, to whom Washington is a strange, far-off country, populated by a malign species of aliens, split into warring tribes called the Democrats and Republicans.

A lot of Americans are aware of Tony Blair, because it is he who stood by the United States in the dark hours following 9/11 and sent "his" troops into bat alongside GW, when the fateful decision was made to depose Saddam Hussein. But, I bet, very few indeed are aware that he is leader of the Labour Party or that the nearest political equivalent to his party in America is the Democrats.

Most politically-aware Americans (which is a lot) will be aware of the term "conservatives" and a smaller number might be aware that, in the UK there is a political grouping called the Conservative Party. The very few that even think about it, might briefly associate that party with conservativism and leave it at that. David Cameron, aka the Boy King, will be completely unknown to all but a handful.

It is useful nevertheless, to try and explain one's own predicament though the imagined eyes of a foreigner – and American eyes are as good as any.

Thus we can describe the political scene in Britain as been dominated by a party which calls itself New Labour, which, by tradition is akin to the Democrats - representing as it does the working man – but has long since ceased to represent anything other than itself and, if anything, is closer to Republican values in some respects.

On the other hand, we have a Conservative Party which is no longer conservative and, in its attempts to get itself re-elected, is adopting the clothes of the left wing – becoming closer in spirit to the Democrats, more so even than New Labour. This, incidentally, was the party of Margaret Thatcher, who would be turning in her grave if she was dead. Fortunately, she is not, but that is her only fortune. The party she sought to re-create has been destroyed.

For most Americans, whom we are told are so stupid that they can only count to two, and then only with a calculator (although the ultimate insult is much better – I use it in respect of the old enemy – state vets. How do you pick one out in a crowd? Ask everyone to count to eleven. The vet is the man who takes his socks off.) we have to stop at two political parties.

But for the political sophisticates – i.e., those who can handle numbers larger than two – we can reveal that there are in fact three "main" parties, the third being what is laughingly called the Liberal Democrats.

The philosophy of his party is relatively easily understood if you appreciate that it is neither liberal nor democrat, and practices an advanced form of poliitcal schizophrenia. When it campaigns at a local level, it is all things to all men (and women), telling electors anything they want to hear. But, at national level, it is unashamedly Democrat, i.e., not democratic, and thus horribly left-wing.

Thus it is in the UK that we have three main parties, all of which are left-wing. And, on the issue which is of such interest to so many of us – our continued membership of the European Union - all three of those parties are in favour.

With that background, readers not familiar with the UK political scene – which includes most citizens of the UK – are now better equipped to understand Mr Simon Heffer's rant in today's Daily Telegraph.

As a "rabid" right-wing columnist, he reveals a feature of the British political scene that seems to be catching the three main political parties completely by surprise. What is happening is that many people – we call them voters – are so disillusioned with the current setup that they are saying "a pox on all your parties", and walking away.

This, of course, is not supposed to happen. Given a choice of three, we are supposed to pick one. Instead, with these parties all occupying various positions on the left, other, minority parties are moving in to fill the vacuum. Pre-eminent amongst these is the UK Independent Party which, as Heffer points out, is beginning to Hoover up the votes of the disaffected right wing.

In so doing, it is undoubtedly aided by its new leader, Nigel Farage, who Heffer tells us is, "highly articulate, plain spoken, experienced, attracting much media attention and highly politically motivated". Fortunately for UKIP, very few know - or care - that Farage is also an unprincipled, self-centred, intellectually challenged shit. Most of those who do have left (or are leaving) the party.

But, for those who would not now vote for UKIP even if hell froze over, there are other options, not least the British National Party. The problem here is that, although it is branded "extreme right-wing", it is in fact a far-left party. And while UKIP is capturing the disaffected right, BNP is Hoovering up votes from the disaffected old Labour left. In the heady days of the Thatcher revolution, these were the people - the "White van man" - who gravitated to the Conservatives and gave them 18 years of power.

Perversely, while the leaders of the main parties would all like to claim the mantle of Thatcher, the recipient of her now disillusioned support is Nick Griffin, the leader of the BNP. Effectively, he is the true heir of Thatcherism.

How you see it, though, depends on how close you are to which particular coal face. In the Conservative Party, there is a diminishing rump which believes that the Boy King is the New Messiah who will lead their left-facing party to the promised land. They are happy to see the unreformed right-wingers desert the ship - heedless of the fact that these comprise the core vote of the party - crowing that they are simply consigning themselves to the political wilderness.

But, as Heffer writes, "the wilderness is getting is getting rather crowded". And there we will stay until we have a true conservative party again.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: BNP, Tories, UKIP

How the Independent must have loved posting this headline: "Gypsy-haters, holocaust-deniers, xenophobes, homophobes, anti-semites: the EU's new political force."

This, as written by Stephen Castle, the paper's EU correspondent, records
"Europe's far-right, xenophobic and extremist parties" crossing a new threshold yesterday, winning more speaking time, money, and political influence in the European Parliament than ever before.

Claiming the backing of 23 million Europeans, ultra-nationalists secured enough MEPs to make a formal political grouping in the EU Parliament, surmounting the hurdle that requires 20 MEPs from at least six member states, all sharing a general political philosophy.

Called the Identity, Tradition and Sovereignty (ITS) group, this has been made possible by the admission of Romania and Bulgaria in January. Their "far-right" MEPs have joined together with "hardline nationalists and extremists" from France, Austria and Italy, plus one from the UK, former UKIP MEP Ashley Mote, now sitting as an independent.

Mote, therefore, is being held partly responsible by The Times for helping this far-right groups to get funding, a cool €1 million each year for "administrative expenses".

Prominent members of the far-right alliance include Jean-Marie Le Pen, leader of the French National Front, Alessandra Mussolini, granddaughter of Benito Mussolini (pictured), Frank Vanhecke, leader of Belgium's separatist Flemish nationalist party, Vlaams Belang, and Andreas Mölzer, a former aide to the Austrian far-right leader, Jörg Haider.

In their haste to declaim this new group, however, none of the media seem to have realised that, in branding it "far right" and "extremist" - a position led by the BBC - they can no longer so easily tar the UK Independence Party with the same brush. Unwittingly, they have positioned UKIP – and its agenda of leaving the EU – that bit closer to the "moderate" centre.

Although having been expelled from it, Ashley Mote has in fact done a far greater service to his former Party than he could have, had he remained in it.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: EU parliament, UKIP

More buzzing in eurosceptic circles: Tim Congdon, the eminent economist, has announced that he will be supporting UKIP if David Cameron remains leader of the Conservative Party.

Whether Professor Congdon actually joins UKIP as George Jones and Brendan Carlin say in today's Daily Telegraph or not, if he continues to write well-argued articles of the kind on today's op-ed page, he will be something of a threat to the Conservatives.

The points that he makes are sensible and well-argued and are not confined exclusively to the issue of the European Union, though Congdon's views on that are well-known.

In the first place, the article raises the standard of individual freedom and responsibility as against paternalistic semi-socialism, as preached by the so-called One Nation Tories, though as it has been pointed out elsewhere, the refusal to contemplate the idea of vouchers in education indicates that the Conservative leadership rather likes the idea of a few children (including their own) getting good education while everyone else is stuck with few prospects of improvement.

These paternalists see their job as being the application of their superior knowledge to state action of some kind. Their political impulses are to tax and spend, to meddle and regulate, and to interfere and control; they welcome state involvement in "socially desirable" activities.

We all know where that sort of paternalism has brought this country: an appalling education system, a health care system that is not nearly good enough for a country as rich as this one, and an economy that favours the parasitic public sector at the expense of the wealth making private one.

Above all, it has destroyed the core ideas of individual freedom and small government that many of us, previous Conservative voters believe in.

Congdon goes on. Like this blog he accepts that what David Cameron says is what he means.

But I think this is unfair and dishonest. Mr Cameron should be taken at his word. When he says he is in favour of "national school-leaver programmes", "social action zones" and suchlike, and when he says that the Tories should become "the champions of social action", he really does mean what he says. Whether his words have any genuine meaning is another topic, but of his sincerity in uttering them there should be no doubt.

On the main issues of the day, all the big parties are now close together. Unless the Tories drop Mr Cameron with all his misguided baggage (a badly rationalised environmentalism, Third World do-goodism, holier-than-thou "social inclusiveness" and the rest), I cannot vote for it. I believe today — as I did in the 1980s — in a small state, low taxes and free trade.

David Cameron and the party under him has a set of woolly-minded ideas that can carry disastrous consequences (just think what that Third World do-goodism has done in the last four decades in Africa).

On top of that, it is unreliable, to put it mildly, on the very important question of the UK's relationship with other European countries and the world. For all of these reasons, he will now support UKIP, who have come up with better policies. What was the reaction of the various Tories and, indeed, readers of the Daily Telegraph?

Many of those responding to Tim Congdon's article seemed unable to understand what actually happened in the eighties and why the Thatcherite shock tactics had had to be adopted. But a number have, rather gloomily, admitted that there was a good deal to be said for Professor Congdon's analysis.

Iain Dale, in his diary, expressed disquiet at the thought of a man of Congdon's calibre leaving the party and, again, several of the responses took that theme up. But, astonishingly enough, there were numerous responses along the lines of "he is past his sell-by date", "he is completely mad", "if he leaves the Conservative Party for UKIP then it is good riddance to bad rubbish", and the old-old theme: "anyone who really wants to achieve withdrawal from the EU or reassertion of free market ideas should vote Conservative as that is the only part who will do this". How they figure that last argument I have never been able to understand.

In other words, many, though not Iain Dale, in and around the Conservative Party are learning nothing. As far as they are concerned it is the solemn duty of everybody who dislikes this government and its policies to vote Tory because that is the only alternative. Sadly, they are not an alternative in any real meaning of the word.

Equally sadly, from their point of view, the electorate is growing more aware of its role in the democratic process. Let me repeat this once again for the benefit of any stray Tory who happens to read this blog: we, the electorate, owe you nothing. You owe us a reason or, preferably, several reasons why we should vote for you. Until you produce those reasons, we shall not do so.

For the benefit of those who tell me that I cannot expect the Conservative Party to have the policies I want, let me reiterate. They cannot expect me to vote for them if they abandon any policy that can be described as being even remotely conservative, such as lower taxation, smaller government, greater encouragement for people to take their own path.

Oddly enough, the ToryBoy blog has decided to ignore the story of Tim Congdon, which is probably just as well, as the comments on it tend to go on and on about the lunacy of UKIPPers, as if that had any relevance.

Instead, there is a piece about satisfaction with David Cameron going up among party members from 68 to 71 percent, not in itself an indicator of anything very important but it sounds reassuring. Curiously, only 19 per cent of those members who bothered to answer the question (for some reason no figures are given, only percentages) think it very likely that Cameron will be Prime Minister after the next election. That is not a particularly high figure from your own supporters, even with the addition of 53 per cent who think it quite likely.

The other posting is the story written by Fraser Nelson in this week's Spectator and quoted in the Daily Telegraph as well. Its purport is that David Cameron and his wife, Samantha, have been fantastically good at raising money.

Instead of the usual £15 million in a non-election year, they have managed to raise £21 million through remarkable fund raising efforts that involved Samantha turning up even when her nanny was ill. (Was there a substitute nanny or did she have to ring round her friends desperately, hoping that someone was free that evening?)

Everyone involved in Tory fundraising offers the same explanation for the new bonanza. "It's entirely down to David. No modern Tory leader has been so deft with the donors," said one fundraiser. "He remembers their names, their wives' names, their business problems, everything." Added to this is the indefinable but unmistakable aura of a winner. When asked what difference this makes, my source tilts his head back and rolls his eyes. "Night and day," he says.

Um, maybe. In the end, the rich man in his castle has only one vote as does the poor man at the gate, whose children get bad education and whose grandmother cannot get her hip replaced in time, not to mention the fact that his small hovel has been broken into three times in the last year with the police doing what is generally known as "sweet f.a.", while his taxes are going up and set to go up even more under a putative Tory government.

Furthermore, it is not all that surprising that the Camerons know how to deal with rich people. Are they not rather well off themselves? Does the fragrant Samantha not work at Smythson's, stationery purveyor to the rich? Has not the less fragrant Boy-King's only non-political job been a corporate affairs directorship with the now defunct Carlton TV, that is schmoozing with the rich and the grand?

The question is what is that £21 million going on. At the end of last year the Conservative Party was supposed to be £35 million in debt. According to Fraser Nelson, all that will be wiped off when they sell that white elephant they still own in Smith Square.

Quite so. But they have not sold the white elephant so, presumably, the £21 million will go towards settling some of the debt and not the putative war chest that should make the Conservative Party the only one able to fight an election in the next six months.

Undoubtedly, the Labour Party and Gordon Brown have problems with raising funds as Fraser Nelson points out. The question is does that matter. There is no particular reason why Brown, even if he does become Prime Minister this year should call an election any earlier than it is absolutely necessary. John Major didn't, James Callaghan didn't, Sir Alec Douglas Home didn't, Harold Macmillan didn't.

The argument that he needs a mandate of his own is fallacious. The British system does not give mandates to individuals, unlike the American presidential one. It is a party that is elected and, like it or not, the Labour party was elected for its third term. Gordon Brown can sit it out to the very end of that term with full constitutional and political propriety. And the Conservative Party members can go on rejoicing in Sam and Dave being able to raise money while more and more people with influence abandon it, not understanding the new caring-sharing, compassionate Conservative Party.

This spring we shall see whether the electorate has any time for that entity. There are local elections coming up in many parts of the country the Conservatives did not do particularly well last time round.

Labels: Gordon Brown, Tories, UKIP

The big news in eurosceptic circles is that two of the "defrocked" peers, Lord Pearson of Rannoch and Lord Willoughby de Broke, have joined UKIP. They have not precisely "defected" as the Daily Telegraph, managing to get things wrong again, put it. It was more a question of their party abandoning them.

Both noble peers are known for their outspoken views on many issues, particularly the European Union and its effects in this country. This blog has mentioned both of them from time to time and, no doubt, we shall go on writing about the questions and debates the two peers will initiate and participate in. I have it on good authority (one of the peers in question) that they intend to go on fighting in order to persuade the Conservative Party that the European question is, indeed, a very important one.

When the peers (together with two others, Baroness Cox and Lord Stevens of Ludgate) lost the whip, I wrote about the stupidity of the Tory leadership in letting people like that go.

Lord Pearson has worked long and hard for the Conservative Party, among other actions, raising a good deal of money and a party that is £35 million in the debt cannot afford to be sniffy about such matters. Before he was ennobled, Malcolm Pearson was well known in the ranks of those who fought Communism and he has continued to speak up in humanitarian matters, such as the fate of the Kalahari Bushmen.

About his colleague I wrote at the time:

Yet an even greater sign of the Conservative Party’s desperate fumbling on this issue is their withdrawal of the whip from Lord Willoughby de Broke, one of the hardest working and most active peers in the House, though he has never held a paid ministerial job. He is not as well known in the media as Lord Pearson, but he is as important in politics. Furthermore, he is a scion of an old and active Tory family.

My colleague added in another posting when Lord Willoughby de Broke addressed a UKIP fringe meeting:

David Willoughby de Broke is no ordinary peer. He is the 21st Baron, heir to an unbroken line, which stretches back to 1491, son of a war hero and a Tory through and through. If you cut him in half and split his bones, he would have "Tory" etched through them like a stick of rock. He is the embodiment of the Tory establishment, and, despite that, a thoroughly nice and truly caring man. He even looks like a Tory.

And it was this man, this High Tory, who carried the conviction. What he had hoped to hear from Mr Howard was that he would have wished to repatriate many more powers than just fishing, the Social Chapter and aid, and, if negotiations failed, then he would "consider all our options… including withdrawal", warning that his party was "dead meat" if it did not listen to public concern over greater European integration.

Actually, I believe, the line stretches back further but let that pass.

I have worked with both peers and hope to do so in the future (though this does not mean I am joining UKIP, having been purged from it once). They are both strong-minded and conscientious, campaigning for the issues they believe in, be that the EU, hunting, matters to do with agriculture or the situation in China, Tibet and Hong Kong. And, of course, they do not get paid for the work they do, merely given rather limited expenses, unlike the various MPs who do little but are convinced that they are underpaid.

The Conservative Party can ill afford to lose people like that and UKIP has done well to snap them up, despite the ill-natured and frankly ignorant sniggering that has gone up from some of the Conservative blogs. No wonder Nigel Farage is strutting.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: House of Lords, Tories, UKIP

The Times tells us that a superstore tycoon and avowed Eurosceptic has defended his decision to hire more than 30 workers from Poland.

Bruce Robertson, who owns Trago Mills and is a member of the UK Independence Party member, employs the workers at his complex near Newton Abbot in Devon.

He said: "I have no alternative than to employ foreign workers to keep our business going. Increasing legislation by our own Parliament and the EU has provided a mass of red tape for employers."

Some of that legislation was the EU's metric law, which made it an offence to sell – amongst other things – Brussels sprouts by the pound. Bruce's response was to set up a vegetable stall selling – amongst other things – Brussels sprouts by the pound, with a counter to record the number of offences committed. And what fun we had, with not a Trading Standards Officer to be seen.

But, given the quality of staff he was then reduced to "hiring", it is no wonder he is now happier with Poles. They, at least, will have no problem with metric.

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: EU, metric, Poland, UKIP

Despite the fact that the EU is not directly responsible for the closure of 2,500 post offices announced last week, the UK Independence Party (the only party telling you the truth about the EU) is inviting us to download a leaflet claiming that the closures arise because:

Due to European Union rules the British Government no longer has the right to provide the traditional £150m Social Network Payment which has kept small local post offices in business.

Standing aside from the usual incompetence displayed by many UKIP office holders, this claim raises an interesting conundrum. Knowing it to be untrue, should we promulgate it, in the knowledge that most people will be unaware that it is a lie – simply on the basis that we are at "war" and the propaganda opportunity is too good to miss?

Or should we try to tell the truth? Would anyone know the difference, and does anyone actually care?

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: EU, UKIP

Plans were announced yesterday to close up to 2,500 rural post offices – causing huge distress amongst campaigners who have been fighting hard to retain the existing network.

Immediately, though, we have seen claims posted on the web that the closures arise "directly because of a ruling from the European Commission." This is from UK Independence Party leader Nigel Farage, who tells us that,

Three years ago, this government signed away the Royal Mail's ability to conduct its own financial affairs. The deal struck in 2003 allowed the government to provide £150 million a year to the post office, which has been extended by another three years ...

"The three years is up," he now claims, and "we are having to live with the consequences."

There would seem to be some merit in this argument as, last February, reports were reaching us that EU commissioner Neelie Kroes had given permission to the British government to continue subsidising the network.

Thus, according to The Scotsman we had the Dutch commissioner saying of Post Office Limited (POL), "I am satisfied that the funding is proportionate to POL's public services obligation. I am happy to endorse a measure which will benefit British consumers in rural areas without distorting competition."

That said, it is never a good idea to rely entirely on newspaper reports, although we have to admit our own error. That is precisely what we did back in February, assuming that this was Kroes giving her approval for the government to grant state aid.

Reference to the original Commission document, however, tells a different story. Rather than approve a "deal" – the one to which Farage refers – the commission actually concluded that the subsidy paid by the British government to rural post offices did not constitute state aid. Furthermore, said the commission:

Even if the measures were deemed to be State aids, they would be compatible with the common market under Article 86 (2) EC in that the mechanisms will be put in place to ensure that the State payments and loans are commensurate to the net cost of the public service and its continued delivery and in that the measures do not affect trade to such an extent as contrary to the Community interests.

The crucial element here is the specific services being subsidised were regarded as "Services of General Economic Interest" (SGEI), the provision of which did not affect community trade. Also, in making its ruling, the commission seems entirely to have accepted the argument that:

Local post offices are relied on disproportionately by the most vulnerable in society – the elderly, single parents, the unemployed, disabled people, carers, and those without access to a car or convenient public transport services and this is particularly true in rural and urban underprivileged areas.

Basically, the three-year period – of which Farage makes such a meal – arose only because the British government only asked the commission to consider that timespan. When the government wanted to continue with the arrangement, the commission readily agreed, hence the Kroes ruling.

Much as we enjoy savaging the European Union, therefore, a clinical evaluation of the evidence rather suggests that no blame for the current round of post office closures can be attributed to any of the EU institutions. As for the commission, on the basis of its own reports it would be entitled to declare, "not us, Guv!" - and be believed.

In the round, the blame for this debacle looks to be closer to home, and can be laid entirely at the door of the current Labour government. There are plenty of other things for which the EU can be blamed. Attacks based on false information merely weaken the credibility of the Eurosceptic movement, especially if you seek, like UKIP, to rely on the claim that you are, "The only Party telling you the truth about the European Union."

COMMENT THREAD

Labels: UKIP