Why I am voting UKIP on 22nd
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.
