Archiv für die Kategorie „What about UKIP“

Why Europe matters by Laura Sandys

Donnerstag, 12. März 2015

Laura Sandys who has written the article linked to below is Member of Parliament for South Thanet and Chair of European Movement, UK.

“In the lead up to one of the most important elections of recent decades and, potentially, one of the most important debates about the UK?s political arrangements we have ever seen, it is crucial that we are constantly talking and thinking about the relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union, two great entities that can do so much for each other when they work in tandem, cooperatively and positively.”

Why Europe matters

Ken Clark & Prime Minister’s EU Reform Plans

Donnerstag, 27. November 2014

The intervention below from Ken Clark, complements very nicely the previous article by BCiP member Robin Baker on “Freedom of movement within the EU”.

Speaking at The Guardian on 19th November, 2014 and concerning British Prime Minister David Cameron’s EU reform plans, Ken Clark the former Conservative Chancellor said:

” fellow EU leaders would not agree to change the free movement of people on the grounds that it is a fundamental tenet of the EU and had been championed by Thatcher in the creation of the single market.”

He added:

?The idea that you are going to make Brussels give up freedom of movement of labour ? Margaret Thatcher was an advocate of this. It was a British Conservative government that gave momentum to the single market.

?The Conservative party and the Labour party have been advocates of freedom of movement of goods, services, capital and labour. It is one of the underpinning things of greater prosperity that we are all trying to get back to.?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/nov/19/ken-clarke-lets-rip-at-david-camerons-eu-reform-plans

Freedom of Movement within the EU – by Robin Baker

Donnerstag, 6. November 2014

The freedom of movement of workers within the Community and the freedom of establishment of nationals of one member state within the territory of another are, as we are frequently reminded, fundamental principles established by the then EEC in 1957 and maintained by the European Union today.

Currently they are increasingly questioned by the Eurosceptic wing of the Conservative Party. To me that means that is has become time to go back and ask why these principles were established.

There are two key reasons. One is the question of individual liberty. Governments should not dictate to citizens where they can go and where they can live and work. The benefit of that hardly needs emphasising to UK members of British Conservatives in Paris; we take advantage of it either just to live or to both live and work here. Many French citizens do the same in Great Britain.

The second is that this liberty is an economic benefit, to individuals and to the economy of Europe as a whole. It permits workers, particularly the most motivated and the most valuable among them, to go where the contribution that they make is most valued and most appreciated. That maximises the economic benefit that they make to Europe as a whole. Many of the French who work in the UK are a good example of this. Their economic contribution is more appreciated in our country because our lower level of bureaucracy enables it to flourish and bear fruit whereas in France it could be stifled by control and regulation. That benefits the French concerned, the UK in general and in time it may benefit France itself if it eventually forces the Government here to reduce their regulatory controls.

What I do not understand is how any Conservative can oppose these principles of individual liberty and the prevention of government imposed rules leading to sub-economic decisions. Both are fundamental to the Conservative Party. In the 1960s and 70s, leaders of the Conservative Party such as Macmillan and Heath understood that. These principles need re-asserting now so that our political leaders can learn to understand them again.

Robin Baker
BCiP Member

UKIP/Tory Rhetoric on EU Immigration

Donnerstag, 30. Oktober 2014

Will Hutton in The Observer, Sunday 26th October 2014, writes that “Ukip/Tory rhetoric on EU immigration strikes at the very values that make us quintessentially European“.

“The Ukip/Tory story that Britain?s greatness was built on independence from Europe is a fairytale. We are as much part of our continent?s history and evolution, and share its values, as any other European country. Arguably, we are the quintessential Europeans.”

“It is hardly ever said, but the EU, for all its frailties and imperfections, is an important and noble endeavour. It stands for the best of our civilisation and its Enlightenment values, even with its commitment to the free movement of peoples. It now needs friends. Time to stand by it.”

Surely appearing to mirror the rhetoric of UKIP is not the way to attract those key swing voters in the middle political ground who decide general elections? The UKIP talk of emulating countries outside the EU such as Switzerland and Norway does not stand up to scrutiny on immigration. Both as part of their trade agreements with the EU must allow freedom of movement and both have proportionally higher rates of immigration than the UK.

Conservative Party should beware UKIP Bigotry

Montag, 27. Oktober 2014

Read this thought-provoking article for the Conservative Party by Adam Bienkov writing in politics.co.uk:

“History has shown that the Tories can only win a majority by appealing to a broad range of voters across the country. This is how they have won majorities in the past and they abandon that aim at their peril.”

http://www.politics.co.uk/blogs/2014/10/27/the-bigotry-of-ukip-is-swamping-the-conservative-party

Value of EU not just its price.

Samstag, 18. Oktober 2014

Read this interesting article below published on www.europeanpublicaffairs.eu :

“The outcome of misinformation on the one hand and total resignation of pro-EU advocates on the other has resulted in one thing ? Europeans have learnt the cost but forgot the value of the EU membership.”

Why Holding an EU Referendum May Be a Good Idea After All: Learning the value of the EU not just its price
15 October 2014 | by Frank Markovic

Thank you Mr Carswell – by Robin Baker

Freitag, 19. September 2014

Thank you Mr Carswell (the former Conservative MP for Clacton and now UKIP candidate) for leaving the Conservative Party. We are better off without you. To see why, let us look firstly at the blog you have published as a new member of UKIP:

?We need change in our relationship with Europe.
When we joined what was to become the European Union all those years ago, we imagined we would be joining a prosperous trading block. In the early 1970s, it accounted for almost 40 percent of world economic output.
Today it accounts for a mere 25 percent. In a decade, it?s expected to be down to 15 percent.?

Yes, and a very good thing this fall in the EU?s share of world economic output is too. The EU has 7.3% of the world?s population, does Mr Carswell really think that our share of the world?s wealth should be more than three and a half times our share of the population? This change results from the strength of economic growth in the emerging economies and that is to everybody?s benefit: firstly because economic disparity between the poor and the rich is dangerous for world stability, secondly because we should be glad to see the world?s poor becoming less so, and thirdly for the selfish reason that the richer they are, the more they will be able to trade with us and so increase our prosperity as well.

Mr Carswell should be aware of one simple illustration of how the world has changed. When we joined the then EEC in 1973, the price of oil was some $2 – 3 per barrel. Today it hovers around the $100/barrel mark. Does he think that this should not have changed the balance of economic wealth?

He then followed this blog with an article in the International New York Times, which repeated that inanity from the blog and added:

?Instead of using primaries to select candidates for parliamentary seats, party hierarchies parachute in those whom they favour.?

The only reason I can think of for Mr Carswell to use a foreign newspaper to write such rubbish about his own country, is because most of its readers will not recognise that his remarks are simply untrue. The decision on the selection of Conservative parliamentary candidates was previously always made by a general meeting open to all members of the local party. True, Party headquarters has, on occasions, tried to parachute in a preferred candidate from outside, but these attempts have generally failed, indeed for a candidate to be known to have HQ support has been the kiss of death. But the Party is now more and more moving away from the ?local Party members? system to taking these decisions by ?open primaries?, i.e. a primary in which any elector in that constituency may vote whether or not they are Party members. Two Conservative MPs elected in 2010 had been selected in that way and a number of candidates have already been chosen by that system for the election in 2015.

The Conservative candidate for the Clacton by-election caused by Mr Carswell has been chosen by such an open primary, this was done on 11th September, a week before Mr Carswell?s article was published. There was, however, one candidate who was parachuted in by his party hierarchy for this by-election. The UKIP candidate for Clacton had already been selected, by local UKIP members. When Carswell defected from the Conservative Party, that candidate was unceremoniously booted out and Nigel Farage parachuted in Douglas Carswell to fight the seat.

One other lie in the New York Times article, which says: ?Most Laws made in Britain this year emanated from the European Union.? Mr Carswell may no longer be an MP, but he can still read reports by the House of Commons Library, a highly respected and independent source of information. They have studied this question and found:
?It is possible to estimate the proportion of national laws based on EU laws. In the UK, over the twelve-year period from 1997 to 2009 6.8% of primary legislation (Statutes) and 14.1% of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) had a role in implementing EU obligations.
It is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts. This includes olive and tobacco growing regulations which are unlikely to have much impact in Britain.?

We do not need Mr Carswell?s shallow thinking in the Conservative Party, nor do we want his lies. He is highly suitable for UKIP, where such thinking is a requirement for membership. That is why, Mr Carswell, the Conservative Party is better off without you. Thank you for leaving the Conservative Party.

Robin Baker

Blair & Merkel leave Cameron in a perilous position?

Montag, 2. Juni 2014

Benedict Brogan writing today (click on the link below) in his political blog (The Telegraph on-line, 2nd June, 2014) thinks interventions by Tony Blair and Angela Merkel leave PM David Cameron in a perilous position on Europe.

According to Mr Brogan

“Downing Street has denied German claims that David Cameron said Britain would leave the EU if Jean-Claude Juncker is chosen as president, but that hasn’t stopped them being widely reported.”
“Accompanying the headlines is a sense that Mr Cameron has gone public too early on Britain’s opposition to the Luxembourg federalist.”

[particularly as it is also reported today that German Chancellor Angela Merkel is already working to gather support for the candidacy of Mr Junker.]

In addition, Tony Blair has entered the debate with a speech to the CBI this morning in which he will try to put himself as the head of the “Save Europe” movement. According to Mr Blair:

“It has to be a debate elevated to a Europe-wide level, with Britain playing a leading role, not just a negotiation of Britain’s terms of membership. It has to be about what is good for Europe as well as what is good for Britain.”

Benedict Brogan thinks that all this makes the Prime Minister

“vulnerable to the charge that his position on Europe is not a big strategic argument based on principles, but a series of carefully judged tactical gambits designed to keep one step ahead of Nigel Farage [of UKIP] and numbers of his backbenchers.”

Mr Cameron has chosen to make his stand against Mr Junker, and perhaps has been misquoted in suggesting this as a break point for future UK membership of the EU, but will need the support of Germany to succeed. Without the support of Mrs Merkel he seems to have put himself into a perilous position.

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/benedictbrogan/100274299/blair-and-merkel-leave-cameron-in-a-perilous-position/

Nigel Farage is just Russell Brand for old people?

Mittwoch, 30. April 2014

Here’s a challenging article on UKIP leader Nigel Farage from Alex Massie writing in The Spectator blog:

“Nigel Farage is a phoney. There is a simple solution to everything that ails the United Kingdom: leave the European Union and, to all intents and purposes, close our borders. Then we shall enjoy a new Golden Age.

It is an illusion wrapped in a lie inside a fraud. No such solution presents itself. In the unlikely event Mr Farage got his way almost every problem this country faces would remain intact ? and remain as impervious to simple solution.”

“Instead of smearing themselves with tar and feathers, mainstream politicians should remind populists that they do the hard work of politics: representing constituents, reconciling competing claims and taking an interest in dry corners of legislation that affect people?s lives. Most politics is necessary drudgery. Seen from this angle, the ?elite? are the people who get their hands dirty. And populists who damn the whole spectacle from cosy sidelines are the truly decadent ones.”

Are the arguments of UKIP and the SNP that different?

Sonntag, 20. April 2014

According to David Aaronovitch writing in The Times, (Nigel) Farage of UKIP is shorthand for those in the UK, including around a third of Tories, who want separation from the EU; (Alex) Salmond of the SNP is a figurehead for those in Scotland who want separation from the UK. The writer finds it increasingly hard not to see the similarities in their arguments:

– The UK (Scotland) has been diminished by its association with, or absorption into, a larger grouping represented by “Brussels” (“Westminster”) that rule and rule badly.

– The people of the UK (Scotland) did not vote for Jose Manuel Barroso (David Cameron).

– UKIP praises Switzerland as a model non-EU country while the SNP/Scottish manifesto mentioned Norway 57 times and that “small, independent nations of comparable size to Scotland are the world’s happiest.”

– Both camps share a common language of complacent and ill-founded reassurance: It will be alright. They’re just bluffing. Britain (Scotland) is too important to the EU (UK) for them not to allow us to separate on our terms.

Reference: Farage and Salmond want you to live in Outopia, David Aaronovitch, The Times, Thursday April 17, 2014