The political journalist Mehdi
Hasan, writing in the Huffington Post today, has offered a list of nineteen
questions that he believes the Liberal Democrat leader, Nick Clegg, should ask
the UKIP leader, Nigel Farage, during their two upcoming European debates, the
first of which is going to be broadcast on LBC this evening and the second on
BBC2 in a week's time.
Now leaving aside that Huffington
Post is renowned for promoting advocacy journalism at its very worst, so you
can virtually guarantee that any article featured in the "Huff" will
have a pre-determined liberal slant, most of the vitally important questions
suggested by Mr Hasan, for Mr Clegg to ask, are little more than a reflection
of the personal antipathy that the journalist obviously feels for UKIP
generally and Mr Farage specifically.
Rather than being designed to elicit useful information for the listener, or
the viewer, about the thorny issue of our European membership, so that voters
might be able to make an informed decision on the matter, at some point in the
future, Mr Hasan is obviously hoping that Mr Farage is both naive enough and
reckless enough to fall into the fairly obvious traps that many of the
questions clearly represent.
Even though Mr Hasan is not
highly regarded by the author of this blog, who simply cannot understand the
level of authority seemingly attached to his political views by the likes of
the BBC and the Huffington Post, in order to ensure that this particular
journalist is in no way misrepresented, the questions he has suggested Nick
Clegg asks are reproduced in full below, along with our own response to the
individual points raised. Obviously our responses to Mr Hasan's points are
entirely our own and do not represent any official UKIP position, but as a
regular British voter with more than a passing interest in the subject, no
more, no less, then these responses are simply offered by way of another
informed opinion, so people make of them what they will.
1) You say that half of
British businesses would support quitting the EU - the Institute of Directors
(IoD), however, polled its members and found only 15% back the UK leaving the
EU. Why should we believe you, and not the IoD?
Before looking at the specific
figures used by Mehdi Hasan, it is perhaps worth pointing out that the
Institute of Directors claim to represent 34,500 businesses within the UK,
including individual entrepreneurs, SME's, as well as Public Sector and
Multinational organisations. However, there are thought to be an estimated 4.9
million businesses operating in the UK at any one time, so any suggestion that
the IoD speaks for the entire British business community is entirely false; and
in fact it is probably truer to say that they actually represent the interests
of those much larger companies, which due to their sheer size and operational
reach, are less affected by the negative effects of EU membership.
As to the numbers quoted by Mr
Hasan specifically, the 15% he refers to, who would back the UK leaving the EU
formed part of a poll carried out in 2013, which saw 1300 members of the IoD
asked for their views. Of that number, some 57%, or more than half were in
favour of David Cameron attempting to renegotiate Britain's terms of its EU
membership, something that the EU has proved itself reluctant to do thus far. A
similar poll of 1,000 IoD members conducted in 2011, found that 63% of business
respondents were in favour of a much looser relationship with Europe, with the
word "major" being used to described the changes that they would
prefer, as opposed to "minor" changes, or indeed "tinkering
around the edges", which is almost certainly all that David Cameron can
expect from his European counterparts. Clearly, with no meaningful EU
renegotiations having taken place thus far; and the likelihood of any major
changes being agreed seeming to be remote at best, it is therefore open to
question just how those same IoD members might choose to vote once
renegotiation was "off the table", once and for all, so to
speak.
2) Isn't it true that the
number of European migrants in the UK (2.3million) is almost exactly balanced
by the number of Britons living elsewhere in the EU (2.2million)?
It is difficult to know whether
or not Mehdi Hasan is being deliberately obtuse or not in making this specific
point, as he should well know that the position of existing EU migrants, both
British and European, living in other member states would inevitably form part
of the formal discussions that would take place between the UK and its former
fellow members. EU migration specifically has never been a central plank of
UKIP's overall migration policy, only migration generally, whether that be from
Europe, from the Commonwealth, from Asia, or indeed from North America.
Despite how he attempts to frame
the argument, Mr Hasan knows full well that UKIP has highlighted European
migration simply because, through virtue of our country's current EU
membership, we cannot refuse to allow any and all EU citizens free access
through our national borders, unlike migrants from elsewhere in the world. It
has always been UKIP's basic argument that an estimated 400 million European
citizens have the legal right to enter the UK, should they wish to do so. Time
and time again, commentators like Mr Hasan have used this same argument to
accuse UKIP of scaremongering for political advantage, when they have done
nothing of the sort. UKIP have simply chosen to illustrate the absurdity of the
EU's own open door migration policies, by clarifying the right of EU nationals
to come and settle in Britain should they wish to do so. The fact that 397
million of them have chosen not to do so, should just be regarded as a
blessing, or a lucky break for our country that's all.
3) What would you want to
happen to the 2.2million Britons who live in the EU once we pull out? Forcible
repatriation back here to the UK?
Much of this particular question
has been answered in the last one, although it is perhaps worth making the
point that for hundreds of years British citizens have travelled and settled
the globe, without the need for a quid pro quo arrangement having previously
been put in place. British citizens looking to settle elsewhere in the world,
in places like Australia, New Zealand, North America, etc. are generally
required to offer the host nation something that they need, whether that's
money, investment, skills or knowledge, they simply cannot arrive en masse and
expect to be granted residential status without comment. Yet here in Britain,
we are expected to offer an open door immigration policy to anyone who purports
to originate from the European Union without even the most basic checks being
carried out. As has been previously mentioned, the ongoing status of European
citizens already resident in the UK, as well as those British citizens living
or working on the continent will undoubtedly play a part in any settlement that
the UK and the EU come to, if and when the UK decides to withdraw from the
European Union. It's fairly safe to assume however that if we end up swopping
like for like then the UK will derive far more benefit from any such exchanges
as the mostly affluent and highly skilled ex-pat community slowly but surely
finds its way home to the UK.
4) The EU costs us, each
and every one of us, 37p* per person, per day. Do you really think that's
unaffordable? A little over half the cost of a Mars bar?
Once again Mr Hasan is being
deliberately disingenuous with his facts, either that or he really does believe
that the UK only pays its direct membership fees of around £53 million per day
to the European Union, in which case he really shouldn't be posing these
questions in the first place. According to at least three different news
sources, The Huffington Post, the Telegraph and Open Europe, the financial
costs to UK businesses because of EU over-regulation can amount to anything
between £27.4 billion per year and £118 billion per year, depending on who
choose to believe. As a rule, when confronted by such hugely differing figures,
it is often best to just split the difference, as it's often the case that the
true figure lies somewhere in the middle, due to most sources either under or
over-reporting their calculations anyway. So if we assume a cost of around £50
billion in EU over-regulation to British business, then that would suddenly
increase Mr Hasan's own figures by around eight-fold, which is around £2.50 per
day, because after all business will not simply absorb those costs, in all
likelihood they'll pass them on to their customers, which is us. The truth is
of course that nobody knows for sure just how much our EU membership costs us
every day, or every year, so to try and make an argument that it's the price of
a Mars bar is quite frankly ridiculous. And let's face it, if an experienced journalist
like Mr Hasan can't find the actual amount, then what chance do the rest of us
have?
5) How much money have you
personally claimed in expenses from the European Parliament, in addition to
your salary? Is it really more than £2million?
Sadly, this is one of those
questions where Mr Hasan openly displays his own personal political partiality,
to the extent that most people would probably tell him to mind his own
business. However, as this particular question has been hanging around for some
time, here's my own thought on the subject. What Price Britain's Freedom?
6) If you're so worried
about the EU 'gravy train' and 'value for money' in Brussels, why did a member
of your party's NEC ask Ukip MEPs to divert £10,000 each from their European
parliamentary allowances and salaries to Ukip headquarters?
Unfortunately, unlike the
Parliamentary Labour Party, which is funded by the Trade Union Movement, the
Conservative Party, which is funded by big business and the Liberal Democrat
Party which is also funded by business, increasingly so since going into
government, UKIP has very few large party donors to rely on, when it comes to
funding its electoral campaigns and the day-to-day running of its political
operations in the UK. A significant number of Labour, Conservative and Liberal
Democrat MP's in the UK parliament already illicitly channel taxpayers money,
from the expenses fund, into their own party's individual coffers, so the fact
that UKIP require their own representatives to make a financial contribution to
the costs of running the party's operations here in the UK, from their own
personal monies, should surely be seen as a positive thing, rather than
something to be ashamed about. After all, most of UKIP's MEP's would derive a
direct benefit from the support that they receive in Britain, so why shouldn't
they help underpin the costs of it?
7) Is it true that EU
authorities have been asked to investigate whether Ukip staff in the UK are
being paid with EU money, in breach of EU regulations? That's pretty
embarrassing, isn't it?
If UKIP representatives are
indeed operating within the letter and spirit of the law then they have nothing
to fear from any investigation into their party practices. However, as this
potential investigation is thought to have originated from a malicious
complaint by one of the opposing parties in the European Parliament, one can
only hope that their electoral practices are as rigorous as they ought to be,
in the event that the EP authorities decide to carry out a thorough
investigation into all of the various parties who sit there. Sadly, the
inference from Mr Hasan appears to be that UKIP are guilty of something before
they have even been investigated, tried or judged, which is perhaps the mark of
a journalist who concerns himself with tittle-tattle and gossip, rather than
cold hard facts.
8) How embarrassed were you
personally when former Ukip MEP Tom Wise was jailed in 2009 for expenses fraud?
Or when former Ukip MEP Ashley Mote was jailed for benefit fraud in 2004?
Probably as embarrassed as any
other party leader would be when one of their elected representatives chooses
to break the law, just ask David Cameron, Nick Clegg or Ed Miliband when their
various colleagues were caught with their hands in the cookie jar during the
Expenses Scandal!
9) You have spent the past
year or so hyperventilating about the cost of 'benefit tourism' - yet reports
produced by both the EU and the UK government suggest there really isn't an
issue with so-called benefit tourism. What empirical evidence, if any, do you
have to the contrary?
Mehdi Hasan states that reports
produced by both the EU and the UK governments suggest that there isn't really
an issue with is commonly called "benefit tourism". However, it is
worth noting that the EU would hardly be pre-disposed to look at such a subject
objectively, as the entire issue would bring into question one of the founding
principles of the European Union, that of the free movement of people. In that
sense the EU study was hardly the work of a truly impartial arbiter, as the
statisticians at Migration Watch found when they studied the EU's own findings,
the outcome of which can be seen here:
Additionally, other public
sources, in this case a newspaper and an online blog have reviewed the issue of
"economic tourism" and have issued their own findings on the subject,
which are shown below:
10) Isn't it the case that
migrants from the new EU countries have paid 30% more in taxes to the UK
exchequer than they've taken out in benefits or public services?
Assuming that Mehdi Hasan's
information is taken from the same CREAM report that he used to support his
assertions regarding benefit tourism, then the more recent Migration Watch
analysis of the subject is perhaps the best place to look for an informed
rebuttal on the topic:
11) Which taxes would you
have raised to replace the £5billion that migrants from eastern Europe are
estimated to have contributed to our economy between 2004 and 2011?
It is interesting that most
Europhiles seem to completely miss the point that had Eastern European workers
NOT come to Britain, then their jobs would have been taken by other people,
including our own native workforce. It is a complete fallacy to presume that
the jobs undertaken by foreign workers could not or would not be done by
British workers, assuming of course that employers would have been compelled to
offer a fair days pay for a fair days work. By introducing an army of cheap
foreign workers some of the main beneficiaries have been crop growers, farmers,
gang-masters and employment agencies who have made their own living, off the
backs of millions of low paid workers from abroad. Had they never been allowed
into the country to begin with, it seems likely that farmers, crop growers and
employment agencies would have had to offer higher rates of basic pay to
attract British workers. So, although there may have been fewer of them, the
amount of money generated by this smaller workforce could well have been equal
to, if not greater than the stated £5 billion generated by the foreign workers.
It is also worth pointing out that unlike their foreign counterparts, British
workers would not have taken part or all of their earnings out of the country,
as is the case with most European workers, therefore providing no direct
benefit to the UK economy as a whole.
12) Why do you think it is
that Ukip doesn't have any female MEPs?
As Mr Hasan knows full well, both Marta Andreasen
and Nikki Sinclair started out as UKIP representatives, but because of their
own personal issues made the decision to leave the party, decisions that will
subsequently be tested in the forthcoming European Election in May this year.
As it is there are plenty of female replacements waiting in the wings to fulfil
the roles they abandoned, including the likes of Janice Atkinson, Louise Bours,
Margot Parker, Jane Collins, along with parliamentary party colleagues like
Diane James, Suzanne Evans, etc. so obviously no shortage of women wanting to
represent the party, despite what the likes of Mr Hasan would like to
think.
13) Could it be because, as
former Ukip MEP Marta Andreasen once put it, you're an "anti-women..
dictator" whose view is that "women should be in the kitchen or in
the bedroom"?
Couldn't possibly comment on
that, although it clearly says something about the journalist who is prepared
to repeat such idle gossip and tittle-tattle.
14) You say you're party is
mainstream and isn't on the far-right but you sit with the Europe of Freedom
and Democracy (EFD) group in the European Parliament, don't you? Doesn't it
include representatives of the Danish People's Party, the True Finns Party and
Italy's Lega Nord - all of them pretty far-right parties?
As far as one is aware the Danish
People's Party, the True Finns and Lega Nord are all parties representing
foreign constituents, so why would the British people be in the least bit
interested in their particular policies and strategies. Were Mr Farage to start
advocating any sort of extreme right wing measures or policies, one might
imagine that the British people would rebuff his party at the election, but as
the expression goes, politics makes for strange bedfellows; and so it would
seem.
15) You're fellow co-chair
of the EFD, the Lega Nord's Francesco Speroni, has described far-right
terrorist and mass murderer Anders Breivik as someone whose "ideas are in
defence of western civilisation" - why don't you take this opportunity tonight
to distance yourself from him and his horrific remarks?
One imagines that Francesco
Speroni's remarks are a matter for him and his party, unless of course, he was
officially issuing the statement on behalf of the EFD as a group, which clearly
doesn't appear to be the case. If Mr Farage was to start denouncing every other
politician's remarks, he wouldn't have much time left to devote himself to the
important matters at hand, the withdrawal of the UK from the European Union. As
it is, Mr Farage and his party are the only mainstream political party that has
willingly proscribed members of other known right wing groups, preventing them
from joining UKIP. Perhaps Mr Cameron, Clegg and Miliband would like to follow
his lead in this?
16) On the subject of
horrific remarks, do you support your colleague Gerard Batten's demand that
British Muslims sign up to a special code of conduct, in which they promise not
to be violent? He is, after all, your chief whip?
Being a party that promotes the
idea of free speech, it goes without saying that that ideal should apply to
most views and opinions, including the more sillier ones. He's no doubt
entitled to say it, but I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for it to become
official party policy.
17) And do you share Batten's
support for a ban on any new mosques across the whole of Europe?
Asked and answered already, one would
have thought?
18) You often claim to
speak for Joe Public - are you aware that the latest poll shows more Britons
want to stay in the EU (41%) than leave (39%)?
A single skewed poll that
purported to be a like for like comparison, when in fact it was nothing of the
sort. As any good accountant or pollster will tell you, numbers can say
anything that you want them to, especially if you slant the question, or skew
the data.
19) What is it that you most
object to about the UK's membership of the EU - the cheaper and safer flights;
the cheaper and better phone calls; the cleaner beaches and action on climate
change; the higher food safety standards; the tackling of cross-border crime;
the single market; the 3million jobs; the 57 years of peace; the global
influence?
Mr Hasan seems to believe that
these things can only have been delivered through the EU, which is palpable
nonsense. Virtually all of these things would have been delivered regardless of
our membership, ostensibly through individual trading agreements, none of which
would have required ever closer union and the federalisation of Europe's nation
states. As for the 3 million jobs, will they be the same mythical jobs that the
author of the report that the figure initially came has publicly denounced Nick
Clegg for using them out of context? As for 57 years of peace, obviously Mr
Hasan has never heard of NATO or the UN. Global influence? Britain's global
influence has declined markedly since joining the EU, so this idea that the UK
benefits from its membership of the EU on the world stage, is a complete
fallacy, one that is constantly perpetuated by the likes of Mr Hasan and Mr
Clegg because they're delusional enough to believe it. As for the overall
benefits of the EU, in terms of security, global influence and preventing
international disputes, just how did that Crimea crisis work out then? Oh I
see!
No comments:
Post a Comment