I'm a pretty vehement non-smoker, I don't enjoy a pint at the pub and Nigel Farage fell out with me when I worked for the UKIP team as a researcher in Brussels, but the scandals that have recently appeared in the media regarding the somewhat unsavoury comments of a couple of UKIP candidates on social networking sites will still not deter me from voting UKIP in the European Parliamentary elections three weeks on Thursday.
At the outset, let me say that in no way to I condone, among other things, UKIP Candidate William Henwood's remarks about Lenny Henry nor André Lampitt's blanket condemnation of Nigerians. I had a job a few years back where I met a lot of Nigerians, including some fine Nigerian Christians. I've no doubt there are also some pretty awful Nigerians, but that's true of any nationality. I wouldn't want anyone to write off the entire population of Britain on the strength of the antics of such appalling individuals as Nick Clegg, Ken Livingstone or Harriet Harman.
Are there any more unsavoury individuals in UKIP's ranks about to emerge into the limelight? Almost certainly. However, there are plenty of equally unsavoury individuals in the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties and in the Green Party, it's virtually mandatory to be completely bonkers if you want to rise up through the ranks. It does seem that the extreme fringe of UKIP is being given an undue share of publicity as the three big parties deserately try to slow its advance. Having been a member of the party for nine years and still in touch with a number of activists, I can vouch for the majority of UKIP members being decent, trustworthy individuals who care passionately about the future of their country, believing with good reason that we would be better off leaving the European Union.
I would also add that I don't think that UKIP has necessarily put across the arguments for withdrawal as well as it could. On law and order, on regulation, on immigration, on many other issues the case for withdrawal is overwhelming, but we're only hearing a fraction of the good arguments.
The same applies to the economic debate. Our opponents' case is pretty weak. Perhaps as a slight digression, I stated in an earlier post that the example of Norway is not a good pattern to take because it would still require us to adhere to the principle of free movement of people. Well, I'll hold up my hand and admit I was wrong. Robert Oulds, of the Bruges Group http://www.brugesgroup.com/ has recently written an article which will appear in Freedom Today showing that Liechtenstein, whose relationship with the EU is similar to that of Norway's, has restricted the rights of foreigners to reside in the country; so therefore could we. The EEA/EFTA alternative of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein is actually more attractive than it first appears. Basically, the Norwegians are more subservient to the EU than they need be. In the long term, we'd be better off with a simple free trade agreement, but a Norwegian-style relationship would do as an interim, and would be more likely to command popular assent in an in/out referendum, especially as it would guarantee there would be no job losses, as we would retain access to the single market for goods and thus the three million job losses which Nick Clegg rabbits on about would remain Lib Dem fairyland stuff.
The point I'm making is that the UKIP leadership hasn't been producing these detailed arguments. Tm Congdon, the party's former economics spokesman, has produced two "How much does the EU Cost Britain" booklets, having taken over the mantle from Gerard Batten MEP, but most of the detailed research in support of withdrawal has come from non-party think tanks rather than from leading figures in UKIP.
I also don't see UKIP as ever likely to form a government - not without a drastic change of leadership and the way in which the party is structured. UKIP support may most likely be considerably lower in the General Election next year, but it will still be high enough to cause a lot of worries not only for David Cameron but increasingly for the Millipede too. Labour's traditional white working class supporters are becoming aware just how out of touch the current leadership is with their concerns.
And this is where UKIP, in chasing the white working class vote, has shown itself to be populist rather than principled. Why can't white working class people be persuaded to support lower taxes? an entrepreneurial society? limited government? This was what Margaret Thatcher stood for and the Tories had far greater support among the working classes than they do now. A populist party is good for a protest, but I for one want to see the emergence of a party of power, with principles - those time-honoured principles rooted in Christian political activism of the 17th century which gave us limited government and which stood firmly for our historic liberties rooted in English Common Law and our Constitution. I want to see a party committed to cutting the size of the state and reducing the deficit; a party prepared to take on the failed multicuturalism, political correctness and nanny-stateism of the Frankfurt school and smash them to pieces. I don't think it will be UKIP, but UKIP may well act as the catalyst out of which something better will emerge.
And the European Parliamentary elections, albeit little more than a protest vote, will hopefully speed the process. To see a regeneration of our country on the lines I have mentioned above requires us to leave the failing, bureaucratic, unaccountable EU. Of course, if all 73 UK MEPs elected to the 2014-19 European Parliament were committed withdrawalists, it still would not force us out of the EU, but this is beside the point. A vote for UKIP in 2014 is perhaps the best one can do at this stage to aid the process. it certainly requires something more than a big protest vote to ensure that we won't be voting again in 2019 because a referendum will become an inevitability and a win for the "out" camp becomes inevitable too, but it could well set the stage for something other than UKIP to pick up the torch and take us all the way to the finishing line.
At the outset, let me say that in no way to I condone, among other things, UKIP Candidate William Henwood's remarks about Lenny Henry nor André Lampitt's blanket condemnation of Nigerians. I had a job a few years back where I met a lot of Nigerians, including some fine Nigerian Christians. I've no doubt there are also some pretty awful Nigerians, but that's true of any nationality. I wouldn't want anyone to write off the entire population of Britain on the strength of the antics of such appalling individuals as Nick Clegg, Ken Livingstone or Harriet Harman.
Are there any more unsavoury individuals in UKIP's ranks about to emerge into the limelight? Almost certainly. However, there are plenty of equally unsavoury individuals in the Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem parties and in the Green Party, it's virtually mandatory to be completely bonkers if you want to rise up through the ranks. It does seem that the extreme fringe of UKIP is being given an undue share of publicity as the three big parties deserately try to slow its advance. Having been a member of the party for nine years and still in touch with a number of activists, I can vouch for the majority of UKIP members being decent, trustworthy individuals who care passionately about the future of their country, believing with good reason that we would be better off leaving the European Union.
I would also add that I don't think that UKIP has necessarily put across the arguments for withdrawal as well as it could. On law and order, on regulation, on immigration, on many other issues the case for withdrawal is overwhelming, but we're only hearing a fraction of the good arguments.
The same applies to the economic debate. Our opponents' case is pretty weak. Perhaps as a slight digression, I stated in an earlier post that the example of Norway is not a good pattern to take because it would still require us to adhere to the principle of free movement of people. Well, I'll hold up my hand and admit I was wrong. Robert Oulds, of the Bruges Group http://www.brugesgroup.com/ has recently written an article which will appear in Freedom Today showing that Liechtenstein, whose relationship with the EU is similar to that of Norway's, has restricted the rights of foreigners to reside in the country; so therefore could we. The EEA/EFTA alternative of Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein is actually more attractive than it first appears. Basically, the Norwegians are more subservient to the EU than they need be. In the long term, we'd be better off with a simple free trade agreement, but a Norwegian-style relationship would do as an interim, and would be more likely to command popular assent in an in/out referendum, especially as it would guarantee there would be no job losses, as we would retain access to the single market for goods and thus the three million job losses which Nick Clegg rabbits on about would remain Lib Dem fairyland stuff.
The point I'm making is that the UKIP leadership hasn't been producing these detailed arguments. Tm Congdon, the party's former economics spokesman, has produced two "How much does the EU Cost Britain" booklets, having taken over the mantle from Gerard Batten MEP, but most of the detailed research in support of withdrawal has come from non-party think tanks rather than from leading figures in UKIP.
I also don't see UKIP as ever likely to form a government - not without a drastic change of leadership and the way in which the party is structured. UKIP support may most likely be considerably lower in the General Election next year, but it will still be high enough to cause a lot of worries not only for David Cameron but increasingly for the Millipede too. Labour's traditional white working class supporters are becoming aware just how out of touch the current leadership is with their concerns.
And this is where UKIP, in chasing the white working class vote, has shown itself to be populist rather than principled. Why can't white working class people be persuaded to support lower taxes? an entrepreneurial society? limited government? This was what Margaret Thatcher stood for and the Tories had far greater support among the working classes than they do now. A populist party is good for a protest, but I for one want to see the emergence of a party of power, with principles - those time-honoured principles rooted in Christian political activism of the 17th century which gave us limited government and which stood firmly for our historic liberties rooted in English Common Law and our Constitution. I want to see a party committed to cutting the size of the state and reducing the deficit; a party prepared to take on the failed multicuturalism, political correctness and nanny-stateism of the Frankfurt school and smash them to pieces. I don't think it will be UKIP, but UKIP may well act as the catalyst out of which something better will emerge.
And the European Parliamentary elections, albeit little more than a protest vote, will hopefully speed the process. To see a regeneration of our country on the lines I have mentioned above requires us to leave the failing, bureaucratic, unaccountable EU. Of course, if all 73 UK MEPs elected to the 2014-19 European Parliament were committed withdrawalists, it still would not force us out of the EU, but this is beside the point. A vote for UKIP in 2014 is perhaps the best one can do at this stage to aid the process. it certainly requires something more than a big protest vote to ensure that we won't be voting again in 2019 because a referendum will become an inevitability and a win for the "out" camp becomes inevitable too, but it could well set the stage for something other than UKIP to pick up the torch and take us all the way to the finishing line.