UKIP calm and reason with some facts

Why I am voting UKIP on 22^nd May.

Firstly, and most importantly, I don’t agree with UKIP and Farage 100%: I do not agree with the way Farage has used what is, admittedly, a scare-mongering message, over and over again, about “opening our doors” to “29 million Romanians and Bulgarians” or “485 million Europeans”. It’s a bit lazy and crass (and potentially offensive to Romanians and Bulgarians) and whilst I don’t think it’s racially motivated in itself, it is certainly likely to pander to racist sentiment. It’s also not necessary and I think misdirects from what are, otherwise, some very solid arguments he has in other areas for being skeptical about the European Union.

Where I do agree with Farage is on the Euro and the legislative powers of the EU.

The Euro has proved an utter disaster and has left much of Southern Europe in a very desperate situation. A single European Currency, overseen by one bank is (and indeed has proved to be) a very dangerous monopolistic situation. The stability the Euro promised to bring has proved to be precisely the opposite with unsustainable and crippling debt levels leaving people poor and utterly disempowered. The consequences of such have been seen in much unrest across the South of the continent. Nigel Farage correctly predicted almost all of it, at almost every turn.

During the Clegg v Farage debates there was much disagreement about the exact percentage of laws that govern the UK that are made in Brussels. But one irrefutable fact is clear: some are. To me, the principal that unelected, unaccountable institutions can pass laws that tell you and me what to do, without one shred of our consent is nothing short of tyranny. Now, some of these laws may be ‘motherhood and apple pie’ to some people, but, unfortunately, that is not true for all, and, moreover, unless you can get rid of the people who make your laws, they are free to do whatever they like. The European Parliament is only one of the legislative institutions of the EU, the others being the Council of the EU and The European Commission – which are unelected. Now, admittedly, the Parliament has had increasing legislative powers over time (ceded from the Council and Commission), but it is still a very large and remote body – reason tells you that democratic accountability is better served by smaller, local bodies, closer to the electorate and, the problem with the Parliament being granted more powers is that indeed, national (and intra-national/regional and local) sovereignty and answerability will be further eroded, moving power further away from the people whom such entities are supposed to serve.

Let’s now turn to the issue of border controls and free trade.

Ideologically, as a libertarian, I am fully in favour of the free movement of peoples across national boundaries. Moreover, not just within a club of countries (such as the EU), but the world over. There are however and unfortunately, practical obstacles to this. The polarisation of wealth occurs not just the world over, but also within nation states themselves. Now whilst I appreciate that free movement, in the longer term, would go a long way to addressing such imbalances on a supra-national level, it is likely to cause problems and resentment within a single country. The tragedy being that it will not be, for example, the richest in the UK who have their wealth redistributed by cheaper labour from immigrants, but the poorest (who have precious little if any wealth themselves), and the big businesses who profit further from reduced labour costs.

And, I have noticed a conspicuous absence of any mention about the fact that the EU, itself, has border controls. Google “Frontex”, which is the EU’s border control agency, (or “border management” as the preferred phrase) and peruse what you find with interest. The EU accepts that border controls are required and if you are pro-EU 100%, then, by implication at least, so must you. So if wanting border controls is racist, as Farage and UKIP have been accused of, then it is not they who are the hypocrites.

Now, Farage has said he wants the UK to open up trade further with the developing world, so they can trade their way out of poverty and become more self-sufficient. I cannot find how that is remotely racist and I think the idea is entirely laudable. Again, of course, as a libertarian I agree with free trade and would, ideologically, like to see it the world over. And again, the “free trade” we have is restricted inside the EU, with policies, such as the Common Agricultural Policy, and tariffs which prevent poor developing countries from penetrating the wealthier markets of EU nations. The result is the developing world is kept poor, and we inside the EU pay a premium on our goods and services.

When you or I go shopping, we enter into a series of transactions in which we purchase a good or service for a consideration. Every transaction is an agreement between two parties, voluntarily (apart from those paid for by tax). I believe trade and movement of peoples would be a lot freer with a series of bilateral, voluntary agreements which would allow free-market redistribution of wealth from rich to poor on both national and international scales. That is not what we have at the moment: we are inside an entity which is evolving into an authoritarian and protectionist super-state at a very alarming rate.

Frontex Website

Wikipedia on Frontex

Frontex Watch

Human Right's Watch on Frontex

A belated tribute to Tony Benn, in context.

Many statesmen and stateswomen are defined as much by how they are perceived and portrayed as they are by what they say. Moreover the problem with politics, more or less the world over, is that it tends to be very tribal and governed by straw men mentality. That is to say, in isolation, if one broadcasts an agreement with a particular remark made by a well-known politician of the day, one can expect to be labelled with everything that politician stands for.

Further, opinions can, and often are, extrapolated by the recipient to mean something quite different from their basic meaning. For example, Euroscepticism (which is criticism of the European Union) is taken to be anti-European, and even racist (neither of which is true). This is the straw man argument – inferring or exaggerating a point of view to something which it is not. Benn was a Eurosceptic, but, maybe because he was part of the Labour movement and identified with the Left, he was, albeit quite rightly, never accused of being anything more than that.

Notwithstanding the left-wing pigeon-hole that received opinion would place him in, Benn held a number of views which fit quite comfortably in today’s fast-emerging Libertarian movement. Politics would be (and I think is gradually becoming) much more engaging and far less intellectually lazy if we recognise that those who have the courage to challenge the status quo, defy the prevailing orthodoxy, and refuse to be constrained by existing paradigms, may not curry 100% with our own opinion, or existing groupthink, but inspire us to think for ourselves and hold those that govern us to account more often and robustly.

Tony Benn was, like other politicians I admire, outspoken and a ‘convictionist’. For that reason alone, I have always held him in esteem, but, I’m happy to say there are numerous views and sentiments he held with which I agree, which are neatly articulated in his own following quotes:

“It is no good talking about being a good European. We are all good Europeans; that is a matter of geography and not a matter of sentiment. Are the arrangements under which we are governed such that we have broken the link between the electorate and the laws under which they are governed?”

“If one meets a powerful person--Adolf Hitler, Joe Stalin or Bill Gates--ask them five questions: "What power have you got? Where did you get it from? In whose interests do you exercise it? To whom are you accountable? And how can we get rid of you?" If you cannot get rid of the people who govern you, you do not live in a democratic system.”

“I think there are two ways in which people are controlled. First of all frighten people and secondly, demoralize them.”

“First they ignore you, then they say you're mad, then dangerous, then there's a pause and then you can't find anyone who disagrees with you.”

“[Edward Heath], who sold out Britain's interests to the Common Market and gave our sovereignty away without our consent—with support of Mr Thorpe and the Liberals—is not entitled to wave the Union Jack to get himself out of the mess.”

“The key to any progress is to ask the question why? All the time. Why is that child poor? Why was there a war? Why was he killed? Why is he in power? And of course questions can get you into a lot of trouble, because society is trained by those who run it, to accept what goes on. Without questions we won't make any progress at all.”