UKIP, elections, and messaging

This is something that I have been mulling for a while, and which I eventually posted (as a long and meandering comment) over on Victoria Munro's blog. Since it sums up what I feel about UKIP right now, I thought I'd post it here as a shortcut when people ask me what I think.

Being a libertarian in this country, in this particular age, is a difficult thing (even for the brief moment when the Libertarian Party existed), and deciding who to vote for is also tricky.

Although I am writing this entirely in a personal capacity, I have been a UKIP member,on and off, for a few years. Back in 2005/06/07, I was a even a policy former for the party—along with another six or seven libertarian political bloggers. We set the tone for the first, proper national manifestos—low, simple taxes, sensible energy policy, small state and free trade with the world—and we were allowed to do so.

Having spent a little time with him, I believe that Nigel is intellectually a libertarian even if—like my parents—he is not instinctively one on every topic: many others in the party were—are?—the same.

Whilst the Tories were enthusiastically pushing the idea of compulsory community service state slavery for young people, I saw a UKIP Conference (mostly made up of older people) decisively and overwhelmingly reject such fascism.

I met many young UKIPpers at UKIP meets, but also at events at the ASI, IEA, and the Libertarian Alliance: these are the people who are coming through UKIP Youth and even in the running as MEPs. They were (mostly) articulate, intelligent and passionate—and not racist.

But, as I found when founding LPUK, there is a problem with appealing to libertarians—there just aren’t enough of them. You are not going to win a national election appealing only to them. Further, I believe that UKIP was finding that the annoyed Conservative vote was also reaching saturation point.

In order to gain a decent voter base, the party has had to start appealing to the traditional Labour voters—or those who have never voted. Which means targeting the working classes. And here’s a guilty little secret: the working classes tend to be more pissed off about immigration than the middle-classes (especially the “Islington” middle).

Think of it less as racism, and more as tribalism—and humans are instinctively tribal animals. But, on a more practical level, it is the working classes who believe, more strongly than most, that their jobs and wages have been affected by high levels of immigration.

This is why we have these aggressive immigration posters and messages that, I must confess, make me very uncomfortable too. However, I think that it would be very difficult to deny that they are working. Yes, the libertarians are leaving UKIP but, as I said before, it’s a numbers game: there are more working class people than there are libertarians.

Despite all of this, I will vote UKIP at the Euro-elections, and there are two main reasons for this: first, that I wish to carry the message, very strongly, to the LibLabCon alliance that they do not have a right to be in government, they do not have a right to power—something that Labour and Conservatives have, I think, utterly forgotten (leading inexorably to a corruption almost as total as the Republicans and Democrats in Washington).

The second reason is equally simple (even if less spiteful): I want Cameron to understand that the people of this country do not want to be part of a Federal Europe, and that he’d better hold that referendum or else. After all, even now, the Conservatives are trying to weasel out of it: having crowed about how they had got the referendum legislation through the Commons, they have been very quiet about it being stymied in the Lords (even though they had the numbers to get it through). In other words, I want to ensure that Cameron is kept honest.

I realise that both of these reasons seem rather negative, but I think that they are the best reasons for voting UKIP at this time.
I sincerely hope that, after this particular flurry of negativity, we can once again start to push the positive aspects of the party—the free trade, small state, citizen of the world policies—to the British public.

In the meantime, I will happily continue trying to push libertarian policies through UKIP, the Conservatives, and via any other feasible political means.

UPDATE: to address the substantive point, most sensible economists (including Hayek) agree that, as long as inequality exists between national states, you can have either a Welfare State or free movement of people—not both.

Right now, we have a problem: we want to control immigration, but we cannot limit said immigration from the EU. Which means that we need to limit immigration from the rest of the world even more than we would otherwise.

UKIP's position used to be (I think it still is) that, outside of the EU, we would be able to treat the citizens of all nations equally. Or, indeed, favour those who have a similar cultural background to the British people—those we loosely designate "the Anglosphere".

Regardless, until I see the media Establishment calling the entire Swiss nation "racists" (especially given their recent vote to further limit immigration) then I'll take the commentary of the commentariat with a massive fucking pinch of salt.

Farage and UKIP...

Looking and sounding credible. And Nigel is right: as I have said for many years, all of the things that people are concerned about involve the EU in one way or another. Whilst "the EU" per se might be low on the electoral agenda, the EU touches just about everything on that agenda.

If you want to change the way in which our country is governed, then you need to vote for people who want us to govern our own country.

Which means not only leaving the EU, but also sacking at least the top three grades of civil servant.

Whilst I have little time for politicians, I have even less time for the technocrats of Whitehall and Brussels—they are scum and they need to be removed before any kind of change is possible.

When the people rise up, the politicians will hang from the lamp-posts as a symbol: the hanging of the civil servants, technocrats and advisors will herald real change.

Yes. But no...

Young Master Hannan is complaining that UKIP split the "eurosceptic" vote, through a comparison with Canada's recent political history...

In 1993, Canada’s Conservatives were wiped out. The governing party lost all but two of its 156 MPs, and began a 23-year period in opposition. Defeat on such a scale doesn’t happen for just one reason, of course, but the Tories’ single biggest disadvantage is easily identified: the Right-wing vote was split.

The Progressive Conservatives, the established party of Diefenbaker and Mulroney, had been challenged by a younger movement, the Reform Party. Led by Preston Manning, one of the greatest conservative leaders of our age, Reform spilled out from the western prairies, demanding radical decentralisation, tax cuts, a crackdown on crime and an end to multiculturalism.

Dan then argues that when the two parties merged, they made a stronger electoral proposition, and the Conservatives have consequently gone from strength to strength.

You can probably guess where I’m going with this argument.

Yup.

The latest YouGov poll has my party on 32 per cent, and UKIP on 9 per cent. Together, that’s a Conservative government; separately, it’s a Labour government.

Which would scare us all, Danny, if the recent actions of your party—in sharp contrast to the rhetoric of both members of the Coalition—hadn't more than adequately revealed that there is (as Nigel Farage would say) not a cigarette paper between your lot and NuLabour. Apart, possibly, from a basic honesty on the part of NuLabour about their authoritarian agenda.

It’s true, of course, that not every UKIP voter is a former Tory. Then again, the relevant question is not ‘how did they vote before?’ but ‘if UKIP didn’t exist, how would they vote today?’ It seems not unreasonable to assume that the majority would support the most convincingly Eurosceptic party on offer.

Sorry, Dan, but remind me which one that is again...?

So let’s ask the question. Are there any circumstances in which UKIP and the Conservatives might combine? UKIP leaders keep saying that they’d gladly fold themselves into the Conservative Party if it became our policy to leave the EU, but such an eventuality seems unlikely, at least in the short term. It’s true that most Conservative voters would withdraw from the EU tomorrow. So would most party members. And so, I suspect, would most Tory MPs in a secret ballot. That, though, is not party policy.

Which is a round-about way of saying that the Conservative leadership does not represent the views of Tory MPs, Tory Party members or the rest of the country.

[Cameron] made two commitments to Eurosceptics before he became leader: first, that he would allow individual Conservatives, provided they were not frontbenchers, to campaign against EU membership...

Or, rather, that anyone who joined Better Off Out would not get any kind of Cabinet job. It's all a matter of perspective, eh?

... second, that he would withdraw his MEPs from the federalist EPP.

But not, of course, before ensuring that he could get enough MEPs to ensure that the new group would be big enough to get the EU funding accorded to those of a certain size.

Could there, then, be a Conservative-UKIP alliance while the Tories remain in favour of EU membership? Yes.

It's actually vanishingly unlikely.

Full independence is unlikely to be in the next manifesto; but an In/Out referendum might well be. And such a referendum ought to be enough.

Why? We all know that referendums have a tendency to be thoroughly ignored—or re-held until the "right" answer is given.

UKIP’s raison d’être is secession. Sure, it has other policies: tax cuts, selection in schools and so forth. But it exists, essentially, to restore British sovereignty. A referendum would take that issue off the agenda whichever way it went.

But UKIP's raison d'être is, as you say, not about a referendum, Dan: it's about leaving the EU.

And, let's face it, Dan, your claim that the Conservatives are "the most convincingly Eurosceptic party on offer" is on shaky ground. Should you doubt me, perhaps you can tell me who said this back in January?

So now we know: no repatriation, no renegotiation, business as usual. December's 'veto' turns out to be nothing of the kind; at best, it is a partial opt-out. Britain had asked for concessions in return for allowing the other member states to use EU institutions and structures for their fiscal compact. No such concessions were forthcoming, but we have given our permission anyway. The only difference is that, because the deal was done in a separate treaty structure, the PM doesn't have to put anything through the House of Commons. We had a generational opportunity to improve our relationship with the EU. That opportunity has passed.

Yes, Danny: it was you.

Some say that actions speak louder than words. Me? I believe that without actions your words are at best suspect and most certainly meaningless—all mouth and no trousers.

And the Buttered New Potato and his acolytes—who have a strangle-hold on your party and, alas, this country—have said many fine words (remember the Freedom Bill, the "veto", the promises to restore our freedoms?) but have, in fact, only cracked down even harder on our personal and civil liberties.

The other thing that you fail to appreciate, Dan, is encapsulated in these fragments of your own article...

... Reform spilled out from the western prairies, demanding radical decentralisation, tax cuts, a crackdown on crime and an end to multiculturalism...

... and...

Sure, [UKIP] has other policies: tax cuts, selection in schools and so forth.

UKIP has a highly active and enthusiastic youth wing—headed by highly intelligent libertarian businessman Harry Aldridge.

UKIP is not solely about withdrawal from the EU anymore: it was when I first joined back in 2006, but a number of us campaigned for—and contributed to—a fuller manifesto. And that manifesto is, with a few idiotic mistakes, largely libertarian in flavour. Just as Canada's Reform party wanted more than a desired outcome on a single issue, UKIP is now a party "demanding radical decentralisation, tax cuts, a crackdown on crime".

Further, UKIP is the party that understands that people want to have fun: Nigel Farage's well-known affiliation for a pint and a fag is a draw for those of us in this country who are sick and fucking tired of being lectured at by worthy, worthless, miserable fucking puritans.

So, whilst many UKIP members might be persuaded by your party's weasel-tongued promises on a referendum—will this be a "cast-iron" one again, Dan?—those who are developing UKIP's current and future direction are not interested: they are libertarians and lovers of freedom. They will not be conned by the Conservatives' lies and platitudes—because they are not conservatives.

There's a backlash coming, Dan: why do you think that the whole idea of state funding has reared its ugly head again...? The Big Three simply want to shut out the nimbler competitors—rather like the multi-nationals that your party's corporatist policies favour, in fact.

The Big Three parties are all morally bankrupt: this has become increasingly obvious and some of us have principles, Dan. The Conservatives will never have my backing ever again—and I think that most of the young UKIPpers feel the same way.

The previous generations have screwed up: it is time for you all to step aside and let the libertarian youth build a better, happier world.

UPDATE & DISCLAIMER: I rejoined UKIP in January. It just made sense—apart from their immigration policy.

A touch of the Pollies*

The deeply tedious Labour leadership contest is not the only show in town; UKIP, too, are choosing a leader and the two candidates (as far as I can see) are Nigel Farage and economist Tim Congdon**.

I was reading through the latter's letter essay of intent, and something struck me, rather. This sentence...

If I am elected leader, UKIP will have the best economist in British politics.

... is followed, a little later, by this one...

The financial crisis in late 2008 came as a profound shock to me.

If Tim Congdon is the "best economist in British politics", one can only assume that the bar is set pretty low—there are plenty of people for whom the financial crisis did not come as "a profound shock".

Later on, this amazing economist explains that when the financial crisis hit, he...

... left UKIP in order to have more access to the top brass in the Conservative Party (and to some extent UK officialdom more generally) to argue for 'quantitative easing', among other things. QE was in fact adopted in early March 2009—and, I am happy to say, the economy recovered briskly.

Hmmm. I am not sure that having a leader who advocates inflating away your savings through a massive devaluation of the currency—which has, in any case, had almost no effect on the economy (except the previously mentioned increase in inflation)—is necessarily what sensible people want to see.

So maybe he'll win...

* After Polly Toynbee, who is well known for contradicting herself many times in the same article.

** I have recently done some paid work for Athena PR, which is representing Nigel Farage. But I can assure you that I am not particularly fussed who wins this contest—I was just struck by the inconsistency highlighted above.

Farage and the Conservatives

Via Timmy, who is utterly unsurprised, Conservative MP John Redwood is whining about Farage standing against John Bercow.

More importantly it means Mr Farage himself, the most newsworthy of the UKIP slate, is not taking the fight to a leading federalist MP and putting him on the spot as to why he has sold the UK down the river and done so much damage to our democracy by giving away so much power. Surely UKIP should be tearing into Lib Dem and Labour federalists who led the charge to damage our democracy by such huge transfers of decision making? Why isn’t Mr Farage standing against Mr Cable, for example?

For fuck's sake, Redwood, I wish you Conservatives would stop bitching and moaning about how the Tories are the only EUsceptic party in this country—you aren't because you aren't EUsceptic.

• Which party took us into the EU under the auspices of the European Communities Act? The Conservatives.


• Which party signed up to the Single European Act? Oh, will you look at that? It's the Conservatives again.


• Which party signed us up to the Maastricht Treaty? Oh, well, fuck me—it's the Conservative Party yet again!

And let's face it, the only reason that John Major didn't sign us up to the Euro too is because he buggered up the economy so comprehensively that—after crashing out of the ERM—we weren't allowed to.

Remind me, John, at what point have the Conservatives ever stood up and defended Britain's interests against the EU project? And no, Thatcher's hissy-fit over the amount that we pay in does not count—ultimately, she did nothing practical to oppose the process of integration one jot—she just whined about the cost of it.

Ultimately, John, if the Conservatives really are a EUsceptic party then we voters can only conclude that the Tories are all mouth and no fucking trousers.

Farage vs Bercow

I think that it is safe to say that—amongst anyone who follows politics—John Bercow was not a popular choice as Speaker.

I just want to make this absolutely fucking clear, because it has a bearing on what follows: John Bercow is a corrupt little fuck who has not only maxed out his expenses account with our money, but he has also bent the rules to within breaking point in order to avoid the taxes that he is happy to impose on us—the taxes, in fact, that fund his lavish lifestyle through his fat fucking salary and his ludicrously high expenses claims.
...

So, what MPs should do is to elect a reasonably uncorrupt person to be Speaker, don't you think? Especially since it is the Speaker who oversees the MPs and ensures that they stick to the rules (such as they are).

After all, these very same MPs have been telling us how ashamed they are, how they realise that their actions were wrong, how they understand the people's anger. As such, they surely must want to elect an untainted Speaker who will be able to summon some moral authority when bringing reform to the system of allowances benefits-in-kind.

But no, our glorious representatives decided to elect John Bercow—who was incredibly corrupt. Most people seem to take it for granted that Bercow was installed mainly through the votes of Labour MPs who—knowing how much the Tories loathed this viper—voted for him in droves, merely to annoy the Conservatives.

Once again, MPs acted not in the interests of the country or of their constituents, but voted according to party political machinations and petty vendettas. Pathetic.

Anyway, the convention is that the main parties should not contest the Speaker's seat—something that leaves the people of that Constituency with no real choice over who should represent them in Parliament. This is hardly a democratic option.

Breaking with convention then is Nigel Farage, who—whilst stepping down from leading UKIP—has decided to contest the Speaker's seat of Buckingham.

Mr Farage, speaking as UKIP's annual conference got under way at Southport, Merseyside, said he had chosen to stand against the Speaker for a number of reasons.

While Mr Bercow had himself been "embroiled" in the expenses row earlier this year, Mr Farage said he was also the "symbolic" head of a Parliament which had ceded powers to Brussels.

"Everything from what light bulbs we can put in our living room to how we regulate hedge funds is decided in Brussels and the Speaker does not intend to reverse that.

"I want the election in Buckingham to be a debate about how we are governed in this country."

The Daily Telegraph said Mr Bercow had changed the designation of his second home - a practice known as flipping - to maximise his allowance claims but the MP said the moves were due to changes in family circumstances.

Mr Bercow, who was elected Speaker in June, said in a statement: "I am more than happy to be judged on my track record over 12 years as MP for Buckingham, my continuing commitment to the constituency and my determination to restore faith in Parliament."

John Bercow has absolutely bugger-all chance of restoring faith in Parliament because—as I have said—he was, and probably still is, up to his eye-brows in corruption and sleaze. His election was a fucking joke.

I was drinking with a number of young Conservative activists the other night, and almost all of them mirrored the feelings of Dizzy and Tory Bear—go, Nigel, go!

In fact, a number of these young Tories said that they were seriously thinking of campaigning on Farage's behalf. Because most Conservatives loathe Bercow as much as your humble Devil does, a fact that is amply shown up in Conservative Home's recent readers poll...


Although it's a tall order—Farage will need to overturn an 18,000 majority (although the fact that Bercow, as SPeaker, is an independent might help)—but I would love to see Nigel in Parliament.

And that is not only because I happen to like the guy personally, and not only because I think that he would throw a spanner or two into the Westminster works, but because it would be one in the eye for all those corrupt bastards who decided to stick two fingers up at the electorate by electing Bercow to "reform" Parliament.

As The Nameless Libertarian so rightly says...

It also shows that if a politician really pisses off the people enough, someone will stand up to tell them to fuck off. And this willingness to defy convention and the status quo can only be to the advantage of the British voter. It states simply that if politicians take the piss, then there will be people to fight against them.

Go for it, Farage. I hope you win. And let this be the first of many successful challenges to the politicians representing the greedy, undemocratic and sickening status quo.

Quite right: go for it, Nigel! Go for it, and beat the bastard!

UKIP: homophobic shit-for-brains fuckwits

As long-time readers of The Kitchen will know, your humble Devil used to be a member of UKIP. Unusually for those who leave that party, I liked the leadership who were—in the main—rather libertarian.

Unfortunately, the membership are, in general, the absolute fucking pits: reactionary, stupid, bigoted and, as we are about to find out, extraordinarily homophobic.

Earlier today, Gawain Towler—the author of the excellent England Expects—wrote a post about Dolly Draper allegedly attempting to get into Gawain's pants.

[Dolly Draper]: Wouldn't it be fun if sometime in the future you were over on your side of the despatch box and I was on my side and we both knew that we had fucked?"

But the crucial bit is the following sentence...

I pointed out that just because I was bi this didn't mean I was prepared to go to bed with any man who asked.

So, Gawain admits that he is bi-sexual? Yeah. And. So. What? Most of us, I imagine, actually couldn't give a flying fuck. However, a blogger called Junius, whose tagline is...

A critical look at UKIP through the eyes of a long-standing member

... then published Gawain's post, in full, under the headline...

The blog entry that Gawain Towler did not want you to see: Towler admits he is bisexual

Oh my god, Junius? Gawain admits he is bi-sexual? Who would have thunk it? And he didn't want UKIP members to see it because...?

Well, the obvious answer is that Junius, being a colossal homophobe, thinks that bi-sexuality is eeeevil—in fact, this little shit would probably wheel out Deuteronomy 23. And, obviously, Junius reckons that the majority of UKIP members are also massive fucking homophobes.

Your humble Devil reckons that it is Junius who is the unpleasant fucking cunt here, not Gawain. And it is people like Junius—reactionary, homophobic, fucking cunts—who settled my mind about leaving UKIP.

Junius also points to the blog of Greg Lance-Watkins—first-class shitbag and screaming cunt (whom I have mentioned before). I had heard that Greg had cancer but, alas, it seems that the tedious little shit—who has included numerous libellous comments about your humble Devil in his irregular newletters—is not yet dead. Pity.

Anyway, his take it this... [Emphasis mine.]

#425* - EUkip MUST BE SO PROUD IN THE SOUTH WEST

But let us face it Gawain Towler is just the latest in the low grade expectations of EUkip
...

Here is the tasteless and demeaning filth Gawain Towler posted on his Blog besmirching and befouling the claim of England Expects and the words of Admiral Lord Nelson in so doing.

Greg Lance-Watkins is not a UKIP member: he is one of those who attempts to undermine the party and who concentrates his ire on Nigel Farage and his associates. Greg is an illiterate shit-burger who should keel over and die just as soon as possible. And, it seems, he is also a gay-hating cunt—what should they do, Greg, sew pink triangles on their clothes?

So, what is the upshot of all of this? Gawain has posted an amusing story about Dolly Draper trying to sleep with him; Gawain has admitted, in the process, that he is bi-sexual; a UKIP member has outed himself as a gay-hating bastard, and Greg Lance-Watkins is still a Grade A cunt (and homophobe).

Situation normal then.

UPDATE: obviously, this could have been more balanced. One way of doing so, at the very least, would have been to point out that I have no proof that Junius is, in fact, a member of UKIP. I would say though, that member or not, Junius is, undoubtedly, a total fucking cunt.

Farage on LPUK

There is an interview with Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP, in this month's Total Politics and one of the questions concerns the Libertarian Party.

What about the new Libertarian Party? That is a threat to you. You have lost people to it.

[Shrugs]. Of course. People join organisations and they think that they are destined to lead these organisations and when it doesn't work out they seek pastures new. You get thwarted ambition.

Outside the three main parties you find this all the time. It tends to be people who have got a lot of time and the reason they have got a lot of time is that they are no use at anything else. They haven't got a proper job, they have never achieved a damn thing in their lives and they see joining a political party as a way of putting something on their headed paper. It's human nature.

When they find they don't do as well within UKIP as they ought to do, they are happy to go off somewhere else. You'll never stop that. We have suffered as a party from the angry old man syndrome—people with too much time on their hands and a wholly negative view of the world.

Hmmm, I wonder who he could be talking about. Nothing to do with your humble Devil standing for the UKIP NEC a few years ago, one would hope. Ah well, even if that is what Nigel is referring to, I really couldn't give a shit: I'll still happily have a pint with the man.

The fact is that the Libertarian Party will (hopefully) be something different from UKIP: the latter has always (and sometimes almost solely) existed in order to extricate Britain from the EU, and this is a very worthy cause—and the reason why I urge you to vote for them in the EU-elections.

It is a worthy cause because we cannot even contemplate the possibility of a more liberal society whilst an unelected bureaucracy makes so many of our laws. Most egregiously, once those laws are in place, they cannot be removed by subsequent governments: in this way, our membership of the EU contravenes a fundamental plank of our Constitution—that no government may bind its successor. This "rachet effect" that means that the EU gains more and more power—and relinquishes none.

But the problem with UKIP is that what binds all of the disparate wings (and there are many) of that party together is this one, single objective. It makes little difference that UKIP have developed a full manifesto when, should they achieve their objective, their party will fracture. In some ways, the development of the manifesto is in support of the main objective—that of leaving the EU—in order to make UKIP more credible as a party of government and thus more worthy of giving your vote to.

LPUK is different: our objective is a libertarian country and a tiny state. To be sure, this aim can never be attained whilst we are in the EU but it is not the leaving of the EU that is the reason for our existence: it is not a hatred of the EU that binds LPUK together (as it does UKIP) but a common belief that libertarianism is both the right moral and practical choice for this country.

Our manifesto has been put together to achieve that end, not simply to provide a incentive for people to vote for us that we may achieve another end altogether. Yes, we must leave the EU but ultimately that is not the endgame: it is just another fight along the way. And, should we ever leave, whilst UKIP shatters, the LPUK will merely be in a better place to achieve the libertarian state that we all believe in.

When that happens, of course, we will be happy to welcome Nigel and the other UKIP libertarians (such as this enterprising young chap) into LPUK...

UPDATE: With none of your humble Devil's past baggage to hinder him, Patrick Vessey is rather less kind...

Nigel, dear fellow, the aim of the Libertarian Party is to dismantle the apparatus of the state. Our membership have few delusions of grandeur, and even less interest in seeking power for its own sake. We're more than happy to leave the tawdry grubbing over privilege and lining of one's own pockets to those in the other UK political parties—yours included.

Ha!

Wheeler dealing in the EU

As the EU fails to get the accounts for its £116 billion budget signed off for the 14^th year running, Iain Dale berates Stuart Wheeler for pointing out a few home truths.

In the James Goldsmith Memorial Lecture [Wheeler] will urge people not to vote for the Conservatives in the European elections next June unless David Cameron commits to two pledges in his party's manifesto.

The two pledges he says the Conservatives must make are;

1. A promise that if the Lisbon Treaty is not law when they come to power, they will hold a referendum on whether to withdraw UK ratification.



2. A promise that if the Lisbon Treaty is law when they come to power, there will be an immediate, massive renegotiation of the UK's relationship with the EU. If the UK did not get what it wants, the UK should pull out of the Union altogether.

Wheeler must know that the first one is already Conservative Party policy, as is the first part of the second. He must also know that the Party will not commit to pulling out in the way that he suggests.

Well... Iain is being a little disingenuous here. The Conservative policy on the Lisbon Treaty is that they will call a referendum if the Treaty has not been ratified by all 27 countries. So what Stuart Wheeler is demanding actually gives the Tories rather more lee-way than Dave "Spam" Cameron has given himself.

That is, if you believe a word that Spam says—which I don't.

As for the second demand... well... the Treaties really aren't up for renegotiation. And if Dave wants to have a new relationship with the EU, fine; however, here's what will actually happen...

1. The Conservatives will be elected.


2. Dave will say that he would love to renegotiate with the EU, but NuLabour has left the country's finances in such a state that he must concentrate on the home front right now.


3. Dave will ignore or sidestep those who point out that as long as we are part of the EU, all he can do is tinker at the edges. Spam will claim that, in these turbulent times, it would be "inappropriate" to risk the further economic upheaval (even if that upheaval would help him deal with the economy) that would be entailed by renegotiation. I guarantee that he will, at some point, invoke the "hard-working families of Britain, struggling to pay their electricity bills".


4. Dave will also say that mending our "broken society" must be a priority but, seriously, he will renegotiate with the EU in the next Tory government.


5. At the end of the new Tory government, the Lisbon Treaty will be in force, and absolutely no renegotiation will have taken place.


6. In the EU Parliament, the Europhile MEPs who have been re-elected—thanks to Dave's scamming of the Tory MEP list (as clear an indication of his intentions as anything else)&,dash;will continue to push for more integration.


7. If, as Iain Dale suggests, Dave appoints Ken "fat, evil cunt" Clarke as Chancellor, we will start negotiating Britain's entry to the Euro on the grounds that the weak pound makes it worthwhile and that the "Euro will bring the stability" that "the hard-working families of Britain, struggling to pay their electricity bills, so desperately need".


8. If any opportunity should arise for said renegotiation, Dave will make some excuse along the lines of there not being the appetite in Britain for such a move; not, at least, whilst "hard-working families are struggling to pay their bills".

The only way, as I have argued before, actually to show Cameron and his collection of lying, statist Tory cunts that there is an appetite for withdrawal is to have as many people as possible vote for an anti-EU party in the Euro-elections—and since I would never advocate that anyone votes for the BNP, then I must urge you to vote for UKIP.

Let's be absolutely straight here: even if the Tories here are EU-sceptic (and that's a pretty fucking huge "if", by the way), the majority of the current MEPs—many of whom are top of their lists again—are most definitely not.

A lot of people in the Tories (and most in the Arsehole Faction in UKIP) think that MEPs go native when in Brussels: if you think that UKIP MEPs have been corrupted by the lovely moolah and the Communist-style brain-washing, just consider how fucking insane must be those who were EUphiles to start with.

No, show that massively-foreheaded fucker Cameron what you think of his dithering and shite: vote UKIP at the Euro-elections and maybe—just maybe—Spam will be given the courage to do the sensible thing and get us out of this lunatic, totalitarian organisation.

Because if you think that Dave is actually going to do fuck-all at present when he gets in, you are not only deeply naive but more than a wee bit stupid.

UPDATE: Iain objects to my assessment...

You misrepresent me. My point was that he overstates his role in the Tory Party. he hasn't donated for 5 years. And I objected to the fact that he was urging people to vote for a rival political party. On that basis he could be thrown out of the party. Would UKIP stand for someone urging people to vote Tory? I doubt it.

I doubt it too; thus it is fortuinate that the Libertarian Party does (because we are not standing in the EU-elections on principle). However, Iain, my point was really that you were being, both technically and generally, somewhat optimistic about Spam's promises. What Wheeler does is no concern of mine...

Two UKIP memes

Via the website, this is the first part of Nigel Farage's speech to the UKIP Conference 2008.


I am glad to see Nigel emphasising two things: the first is that these Euro-elections should be, as he puts it, "the referendum that we never had." As readers will know, I entirely agree with him: sure, you can go and vote Tory at the General Election if you like, but at these Euro-elections, send those self-same Tories a big, fat fucking message about the direction that you would like them to head towards—the direction that you demand that they head towards—as concerns the EU, i.e. it shouldn't fucking exist but, given that it does, we want no part of the political and bureaucratic aspects of it.

The second point is one that I have urged Nigel to adopt ever since I first met him, two years ago. I said that UKIP came over as an overwhelmingly negative party: it was the party that was forever saying "no".

I maintained that this had to change, that people were scared of the idea of leaving the EU and UKIP had to be able to paint a positive picture of how a Britain outwith the EU would not merely cope, but be actively greater, more free and more prosperous than it is now. And so it is excellent to see the Party Leader adopting this stance: good for him.

So, at the Euro-elections, kill two birds with one stone: tell Spam precisely what you fucking want and tell the EU to fuck off—vote UKIP.

More UKIP infighting. Apparently.

Via Timmy, it seems that the Independent has picked up on some of the infighting in UKIP.

At the same time, another plot to remove Mr Farage is being co-ordinated by the former Ukip member Andrew Edwards who was removed from the party after it emerged he had links to the BNP.

In January, he sent an email to friends saying, "Happy new year and damnation to the enemies of Britain and the British".

He confirmed yesterday that he wants Mr Farage removed, and named several other figures who believe Mr Farage is not taking a hard enough line on issues including immigration and who are moving against his leadership.

As Timmy points out, Andrew Edwards has little influence in the party and the sooner he fucks off to the BNP, the better frankly.

Then there is David Abbott, a member of Ukip's national executive committee (NEC), and former candidate in the European elections. He once donated money to the American Friends of the BNP (AFBNP).

Dr Abbott, whom Mr Farage has tried to remove from the NEC, said he was working for Mr Farage's removal from the leadership, saying "UKIP needs effective leadership".

The kind of "effective leadership" that would actually ensure that Farage could remove you from the NEC, you mean? Seriously, arseholes like David Abbott sit about and complain that Farage rules the party as a dictator but is, apparently, still in office. Not a very effective dictatorship then, eh, David? You fucking tosser.

A quick reminder that David Abbott gave money to the BNP and then, when this was revealed (in yet another damaging press story), claimed that he had no idea what the BNP actually stood for. It seems that we must apply the Polly Conundrum to Dr Abbott, i.e. is he pig-ignorant or a lying piece of shit?

Nick Griffin, the BNP leader, confirmed both Dr Abbott's donation – which he said was a one-off and on "free speech" grounds – and Mr Edwards' ever-closer involvement with the BNP. He said Mr Edwards regularly wrote for the BNP website, confirmed he was involved with the BNP while in Ukip and said that he "was with them and is now much more sympathetic to us".

He said Mr Edwards was "one of a number of people who joined Ukip in good faith and then found that it wasn't – and Nigel Farage in particular wasn't – what they had thought".

Indeed so, and therein lies the problem with UKIP—it's this schizophrenia that was the prime reason for my leaving the party.

You see, there are two parts to UKIP: there are those who want to leave the EU because they believe in free trade and minimal government—these libertarians include Nigel Farage and, of course, our classical liberal blogging friends, e.g. Timmy, Vindico, Mark Wadsworth.

Then, of course, there are those who want to leave from a nationalist point of view—because they view the EU as a construct of evil foreigners who wish to do Britain down. They are on a fairly broad spectrum, from the ultra-Conservative to the more extreme end; this latter group are very definitely potential BNP material. One can only assume that they joined UKIP to avoid the opprobrium that membership of the BNP would bring.

However, all of the conservative group despise the libertarians, who they perceive as being, at best, wishy-washy liberals and, at worst, actively dangerous lunatics. I mean, everyone knows that the legalisation of drugs is quite simply an evil policy, don't they?—one that will lead to our streets being awash with addicts intent on mugging decent, hard-working folk to feed their crack and crystal meth addiction. And we all know that free trade will lead to every person in Britain being slung out of a job and being replaced with darkies, do we not?

The problem for UKIP is that these two groups are unreconcilable. You will all know which side I favour and which side I think are stupid, pusillanimous cunts. Unfortunately, the latter group are extremely noisy and just will not shut the fuck up. And there are a lot of them.

The libertarian group—and those who are not actively opposed to the libertarians (mild conservatives, if you will)—continue, in the main, to hold the positions of power at present. But if they should ever be ousted, then UKIP could become a very ugly party indeed.

Let us hope that this does not happen, for I do retain a certain affection (and admiration) for those who lead this rag-tag bunch of people. Whatever the state of the party, I would also urge you to vote for UKIP at the Euro-elections: although The Huntsman disagrees, urging a Tory vote, he is absolutely wrong. If we wish the next Conservative government even to start negotiating a withdrawal, we need to show them that there is the wish and the will in this country to start such negotiations.

And, realistically, the only way to do that is to vote for withdrawal; and, because General Elections are decided on a great many issues other than the EU, the only real chance that we have to vote solely on this issue is at the Euro-elections. We need to send a message to our Lords and Masters in Westminster that there is popular support for withdrawal, and that they must stop swithering, take their balls in their hands and start the process of withdrawal: the only way to do that is to vote for the only credible party advocating such a move—UKIP.

Humanist UKIP humourousness...

There has been much hilarity over the fact that the British Humanist Association is sponsoring part of the UKIP Conference, for Polly Toynbee is president of said society.

Most amusing.

It's worth pointing out, of course, that these political types do tend to cross borders. The last time that I saw Polly and Nigel Farage in the same room, for instance, was when they were discussing the EU at the Fabian Society Conference (the panel also included TEBAF Margot: such was the level of my suppressed rage that I chewed my way through several pencils).

What is not amusing in any way is that an organisation calling itself the British Humanist Association could ever appoint someone who so obviously hates people as its President; not only is Polly an evil, misanthropic shitbag, but she is also an ignorant, uninformed lying little fuck-dwarf. And having such a piss-awful, untrustworthy little cunt as their President just makes me think that the British Humanist Association are a bunch of pig-ignorant, unpleasant, sweaty fucktards.

And no, I wouldn't take their money.

A note to all UKIP London members

There is a fine upstanding gentleman who wishes to become one of your MEPs: his name is Tim Worstall. Tim has been one of my main blogging inspirations and has a talent for summing up complicated concepts in pithy prose. He has also been one of those who has helped me to clarify what it is that I believe in and, indeed, introduced me to the term "classical liberal".

He would be a superb MEP for UKIP being, as he is, not only a EU-sceptic, but an EU-nihilist; that is to say, he believes that it should not exist at all. As it does, however, he believes that we should not be a part of said political institution. His opposition to the EU is based on sound principles of economics and of legality and of sovereignty.

Tim is also a very nice man, offering to take your humble Devil (whom, at the time, he had never met) into his own home in order to allow him a short holiday from the stresses and strains of my life at the time. He also brings me cheap cigarettes and alcohol.

Tim has posted a full resumé over at his place and, if you are a UKIP London member, I urge you to vote for him in the upcoming UKIP London Region MEP selection process.

There shall be no dissent

Trixy is suitably outraged at the continuing contempt for democracy in the European Union continues, with that odious little cunt, Richard Corbett MEP, leading the charge.

The European Union assembly’s political establishment is pushing through changes that will silence dissidents by changing the rules allowing Euro-MPs to form political groupings.

Richard Corbett, a British Labour MEP, is leading the charge to cut the number of party political tendencies in the Parliament next year, a move that would dissolve UKIP’s pan-European Eurosceptic “Independence and Democracy” grouping.

Under the rule change, the largest and msot pro-EU groups would tighten their grip on the Parliament’s political agenda and keep control of lavish funding.
...

Nigel Farage, leader of the UK Independence Party, claimed that the move goes hand in hand with the denial of popular votes on the new EU Treaty.

”Welcome to your future. This shows an EU mindset that is arrogant, anti-democratic and frankly scary,” he said.

This is utterly unsurprising to those of us who have studied the EU grand projet for any amount of time, of course.

Even Iain Dale seems to have realised that this is a fairly fucking shitty move.

At the moment you need 20 MEPs from one fifth of member countries to form a group and thereby gain the grants. Labour MEP Richard Corbett is proposing a change to increase the threshold to 30 MEPs from a quarter of Member States.

Needless to say the EPP think this is a thoroughly good idea and will no doubt be whipping Tory MEPs to vote for it when it comes before the Parliament on 9 July.
...

To their credit, the LibDems and Greens are opposing the move. Wouldn't it be nice to think that British Conservative MEPs might also do the same?

Fat fucking chance, Iain; barring a couple of decent people—Helmer, Hannan and Heaton-Harris—the Tory MEPs are absolutely behind the EU project: they would probably still vote this through even if they were whipped to oppose. But then, David Cameron has expressed enduring enthusiasm for the EU—albeit usually couched in economically illiterate terms—so these MEPs are, after all, merely following their master.

Let me emphasise this: a vote for Labour or Tory at the Euro-elections is a vote for the EU; and a vote for the EU is a vote for losing the point of having a vote.

The EU wish to silence those parties which you elected to oppose the EU project; really, don't think that they will think twice about silencing you.

Get used to totalitarianism, people, but make sure that you take advantage of the eventual EU dominance: invest in gulags!

Not very Wise...

The News of the World has an exposé of MEPs' scams in general and those of Tom Wise in particular.

THE News of the World can name and expose the British politicians milking a fortune from our taxes. For years, we have all suspected the European Parliament is a money-pit. But no one could prove the grotesque extent of MEPs' excesses... until now.

In a two-month investigation deep within the Brussels and Strasbourg corridors of power our undercover team found British MEPs pocketing as much cash as they can lay hands on.

And the amounts run into many millions. Many pay their wives, children and lovers up to £60,000 a year from public funds. They fill their boots on expenses at top restaurants and rake off thousands by flying on budget tickets and trousering full fare from the taxpayer.

Our dossier of shame will shock all Europe. And it must at last force Gordon Brown and David Cameron to bring these greedy fatcats to heel.

Well, that will be a little difficult since all political parties here are, themselves, up to the eyeballs in corruption, but the sentiment is sound, for sure. And there are further revelations of the scams of various MEPs of Tory and other persuasions in this article.

OFFICIAL documents obtained by the News of the World reveal TWENTY British Euro MPs are milking taxpayers' cash to bankroll wives and family as highly-paid "assistants".

However, a certain reliable source sends me this little missive.

Tom Wise left the Ind Dem group yesterday, amongst the reasons for his leaving being:

"Lastly, is the summary dismissal, for no good reason, of two highly effective members of the research staff, one of whom was seconded to work for me. Not only was no attempt made to seek my views or involve me in the process; the individuals were told of this action by a cursory letter!

"In Britain this would be a gross breach of employment law and would represent the worst of employment practice. In political terms it is the sort of thing one would expect from an extremist organisation or people with totalitarian instincts.

"For these reasons I can no longer associate myself with those who blatantly violate the very principles on which I was elected and I therefore have resigned from the Ind/Dem Group. I of course remain a UKIP MEP, a member of UKIP and will continue to campaign and work for Britain to leave the EU."

These members of staff were employed by the Ind Dem group and instead of working to highlight what the EU were really doing they were trying to damage UKIP. They were nasty bullies who spent their time having coffee breaks, not working and trying to get Nigel [Farage] overthrown as leader of UKIP.

They also went through the e-mail accounts of MEPs and staff and sold stories to the national newspapers. So unlike being a totalitarian state, we would rather people do the jobs they were paid to do. They were fired for breach of trust which, in the circumstances, rings true.

As a quick aside, I was tangentially involved in gaining evidence for said assertions and can tell you that they are substantiated. Breach of trust aside, bringing your employer into disrepute is normally a straight sacking offence anyway.

Tom Wise still says he's a UKIP MEP but he's not. He's using taxpayers' money to pay for lawyers to threaten and bully UKIP senior figures who are, unlike him, trying to do the job they were elected to do. It costs Nigel Farage huge amounts of money to do his work but he does it for the cause.

And that, too, is true.

Timmy has a little more information.

Here for a right old bashing of Tom Wise (I’m told by those in the know that at least one of the reasons he left UKIP was so that he might continue to avail himself of some of these possibilities).
...

I also hear from those in the know that the NOTW team couldn’t find any UKIP MEPs abusing the system in the same way. I know very well, for example, that the airline ticket scam is not allowed for those in the party.

Not that all of this is all that new of course. The Social Affairs Unit published a guide to how to work the system just after the last elections.

There is of course only one thing left of interest: who helped the NOTW girl to get that job in Brussels in the first place?

Beats me for sure.

Oh, absolutely; I can't imagine...

Quote of the Day

Here is UKIP peer, Lord Pearson of Rannoch, speaking during the debate on the Lisbon Treaty in the House of Lords. The entire speech is very much worth reading, if you are interested in the economic costs of our membership of the EU (about 8–10% of GDP or £80–£100 billion per annum), but this little nugget particularly caught my eye. [Emphasis mine.]

Of course, our political establishment, so richly represented in your Lordships' House, will not agree with me. It cannot face up honestly to either of those accusations, just as it dare not admit to how low it has brought this country in every other area of our national life.

What do I mean by "our political establishment"? I mean the Members of the House of Commons and this place, the bureaucracy which supports us and the Government of the day and, a point often missed, the political media which feed off us.

It is that political class, politely referred to as the "Westminster village", which is becoming increasingly despised by the real people who earn the money to pay the taxes to keep it afloat.

Nope, I can't argue with any of that. Although possibly "despised" is not a strong enough word to describe how I feel about these bastards...

UPDATE: from the same speech, here are some more pertinent points on the Lisbon Treaty itself.

It is somewhat devious of the Europhiles to pretend that Lisbon reverses this trend by giving real power to national parliaments. It is true that if, in eight weeks, one third of national parliaments can get their act together and get the parliamentary time from their Governments to disagree with a new legislative proposal with which most of those Governments will already have agreed, then Brussels must think again.

However, the Commission can go ahead unless the Council and the Parliament—which will also have agreed with the proposal—change their minds and agree with the one third of national parliaments who do not want it. Even then, 54 per cent of the votes in the Council and 49 per cent of votes in the Parliament can agree with the national parliaments and be overridden. Some democracy, that.

Likewise, it is very naughty to pretend that Lisbon makes it easier for us to leave the EU. It would subject us to a two-year period of negotiation controlled by Brussels, whereas, at present, we could repeal the Single European Act tomorrow and walk free from this prison into the fresh air of free trade and sovereignty regained.
...

However, our political classes love the EU gravy train, the nubile translators, the endless committees and conferences, the travel to Bali and other agreeable places, the feeling that they are maintaining peace in the world—rather unsuccessfully, I submit—and generally doing good, while being very well paid by the rest of us for that luxury. The prospects for all that are greatly enhanced by the Lisbon treaty. That is why they like it and real people hate it.

Real people are already very frustrated, to the extent that many of them no longer see the point of voting in general elections. They want our democracy back so that they can sack the people who make their laws. Real people will get more and more angry until they get it.

Bravo!

UPDATE 2: the UKIP tag-team carries on with a speech from Lord Willoughby de Broke. Not only does he neatly skewer every argument that I have heard anyone advance in favour of the Treaty, but he also lays into Leon Brittan's abysmal piece of pro-EU propaganda that I delivered a kicking to yesterday.

Here's a representative quote or two.

During Madame Sarkozy's successful visit a couple of weeks ago, her husband was interviewed on the "Today" programme about the implications of the reform treaty for Britain. He said:

"No one is asking Britain to change its real identity. Keep your language, your culture, your interests".

That is very big of him, is it not? He conspicuously did not say, "Keep your parliamentary democracy and powers". Of course he did not say that, because he knew that it would not be true. It simply cannot happen.
...

For years we have heard the soothing mood music from the Europhiles: "Don't be alarmed, there is nothing much happening. There has been no loss of sovereignty. The treaty simply aims to make the European Union more efficient. There will be no significant transfer of powers". That is what we have been told for years. Who here remembers that the noble Lord, Lord Hurd, called the Maastricht treaty the high water mark of European integration? I wonder whether he still believes that and could say it now with a straight face. I do not think he could.

In today's Times we have more cooing from the Europhile doves. The noble Lord, Lord Brittan, has written an article headed,

"How piquant if unelected Lords impose a referendum".

He repeats the soft soap stuff; the canard that the,

"purpose of the treaty is to make the EU function more efficiently".

We have heard that a lot this afternoon. The fact is that without this treaty the EU is already producing a mass of legislation. Thousands of regulations and directives are produced every year that this House and the other place simply cannot touch. We have to rubber stamp. We cannot alter a single comma of it. We all know that, do we not? Yes, we do. Thousands of directives and regulations go through without being scrutinised. Well, we can scrutinise and debate, but we cannot change them, even if we disagree with them. Nothing can be changed.
...

Then the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, in his article, moves on to the question of referendums. He is opposed to them,

"as they are incompatible with representative parliamentary government, the true hallmark of the British constitutional system".

That sounds wonderfully statesman-like and unarguable as a principle, but it falls because, as my noble friend Lord Leach said so cogently in his speech, the British people have not been asked and they have therefore never given their consent for their representative parliamentary government, as the noble Lord, Lord Brittan, has it, to hand over permanently to an unelected bureaucracy in Brussels powers that were only lent to them temporarily for the term of a five-year Parliament. However, that is what has been happening over the years; over the treaties, Parliament has been giving away powers that were not its to give away. That is why people are so furious, so disillusioned with the whole EU process.

Quite so. And may I just add that Lord Brittan is a lying sack of shit who should be chased across country by a baying pack of dogs before being winged and then torn apart by the ravenous hounds?

But, in some ways, perhaps we should not make such a fuss about the Lisbon Treaty: our governments have already given away so many of our powers that it hardly seems worth fighting for those that are left.

Their betrayal of the British people is now near-absolute: le grand projet is so close to completion that The Colleagues are even now scenting the sweet smell of success in the air.

We will all be EU citizens soon, whether we desire that or not, and EU citizens we shall remain until the people rise up and start hanging MPs, Lords, MEPs, Commissioners and bureaucrats. Until that happens, why delude ourselves that our democracy is anything of the sort?

Personally, I don't particularly care about democracy: I do care about liberty. Democracy is not the point of the exercise, the endgame: liberty is.

Under the EU, into whose ungentle embrace we are being delivered by the very democracy we seem so inordinately proud of, we will have neither democracy nor liberty.

Shutting down small parties

Trixy has an article by Nigel Farage about how Portugal is shutting down small political parties; they are simply making illegal any political party with fewer than 5,000 members.

In Portugal , UKIP have a good relationship with a eurosceptic party called PND. They are led by Manuel Montiero who is a former MP and MEP for the Portuguese Conservative Party. They are fiercely opposed to the EU Constitution and, like us, want to regain control of their fishing waters from the EU.

They have already achieved some success with an MP in the regional parliament of Madeira and, in the absence of a referendum in Portugal , expect to win MEP seats in 2009. But in a couple months time they might not exist.

A new law comes into force in Portugal in March 2008 that states political parties must have 5000 registered members or they will be declared illegal.

The names and addresses of the members must be given to the Portuguese authorities.

Of the fourteen political parties that exist in Portugal today, only four will be allowed to exist after March 2008.

This situation is truly incredible. It allows the existing parties to stay in place forever and to prevent new parties and new ideas for ever being born.

As one of the founders of a new political party with only a few tens of members so far—owing to the fact that we have deliberately not yet expanded beyond a portion of the UK political blogosphere (although that will change next week)—this is obviously of concern to your humble Devil.

As Nigel says, "could it happen here?" I can't think of a decent reason why it should not; I doubt that the Big Three would object, after all.

And, let us remember that when the first proposals for state funding of political parties was mooted, the plan was to deny funding to any party that did not have at least two MPs. This was a clear attempt to cement the position of the main parties, although the excuse given was that nobody in their right mind would want to give taxpayers' cash to the BNP: apart from, presumably, those thousands of people who vote for said party.

And that's the thing; I might personally feel that giving taxpayers' pounds to the BNP is beyond the pale, but who are the Conservatives and Labour apparatchiks to decide on behalf of those fools who have voted for a legal fucking party?

As I watched the TV tonight, I became profoundly depressed: everywhere there was talk of banning this and that "for our own good"—on Newsnight (fronted by the hideously offensive Kirsty Wark), it was bottles of water, plastic bags (an issue admirably ripped to shreds by John Band), rationed flights, banning 4x4s, patio heaters and other such draconian measures. On Question Time it was people clamouring for a national DNA database.

Truly, the people of this country are not sleep-walking into a police state: they are positively begging for it to be imposed.

"Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety"—Benjamin Franklin

The Libertarian Party is facing an uphill struggle and yet... and yet... many people whom I met at the I Want A Referendum demo on Wednesday (a good turnout there was, too) were receptive to our ideas.

Perhaps there is a small glimmer of hope...

More power to your elbow

Watching this video, I can only echo Vindico's call of "Go, Nigel!"


Do watch the whole thing because it is absolutely excellent—and slightly terrifying.

Near the end of the video, that evil little bastard, Richard Corbett MEP, expresses the opinion that the European Parliament were holding a democratic debate.

Here's the thing, Richard: on the vast majority of votes, it is not recorded which way MEPs vote. I cannot hold my MEP to account if I am not allowed to find out how that MEP has voted and, as such, it is not a democratic institution.

Democracy's most important function is not to elect leaders: its most important function is as a mechanism to remove those whom we deem unsuitable. If you know not how they have voted, how can you possibly know who is suitable and who is not?

For MEPs to vote against Amendment 34, to allow referendums in all countries on the Constitution, and Amendment 32 (and this included three Tory MEPs: Beazley, Purvis and Atkins), to respect the result of the vote in Ireland, is not the act of those who believe in democracy—in that, they are entirely in tune with the EU itself.

The Libertarian Party's policy is not to put up candidates in the Euro elections: we have no interest in ruling over other countries. As such, I have no hesitation in endorsing, and urging you to vote for, UKIP in those elections.

UPDATE: Elaib and Trixy have the voting record for Amendment 34.

Worse far worse than this is what happened when amendment 34 was voted upon, flagged up by Trixy,

Firmly believes that, since the choice involved will have a profound impact on the future, a European treaty should be ratified in all the Member States by means of a referendum, following a pluralist debate on the substance of the treaty and the issues at stake

Again I would suggest that this is pretty uncontroversial amongst those parties that profess to believe in a referendum in the UK, so how did the votes go?

Yes: 85
No: 526
Abstain: 53

And who amongst the Brits voted which way?

Yes:
Batten, Booth, Clark, Farage, Knapman, Nattrass, Titford, Whittaker, Wise, Allister, Mote, Lucas

So that is UKIP, one Green, the former DUP and Ashley Mote,

No:
Attwooll, Bowles, Davies, Duff, Hall, Ludford, Lynne, Newton Dunn,
Wallis, Watson, Atkins, Beazley, Chichester, Karim, Nicholson, Purvis, Cashman,
Corbett, Ford, Gill, Honeyball, Howitt, Hughes, Kinnock, McAvan, Martin David,
Moraes, Morgan, Simpson, Skinner, Stihler, Titley, Willmott, Smith

So that is the Lib/Dems, Labour, the Ulster Unionist, one of the two SNP and five Tories including the delegation leader Giles Chichester.

Abstain:
de Brún, Hannan, Helmer, Ashworth, Bowis, Bradbourn, Bushill-Matthews, Callanan, Deva, Dover, Evans Jonathan, Harbour, Jackson, Kirkhope, McMillan-Scott, Parish, Stevenson, Sturdy, Sumberg, Tannock, Van Orden, Evans Jill, Hudghton

Here we have Sinn Fein, the Tories—barring those who voted against one Green and the other SNP.

It isn't rocket science, this was a simple demand that there should be a referendum.

Five Tories! Including the delegation leader! Go on, count them.

Obviously Mr Cameron's MEPs are not of the same mind as he himself is, although Dan Hannan has defended himself (and I may have seen it sooner if the fucking Telegraph's blogs loaded properly).

Dan has responded to the criticism quite correctly,

I voted AGAINST the report Hagar refers to, the Mendez de Vigo / Corbett report, which supported the constitution. So did all but three Tory MEPs. I also voted IN FAVOUR of the various Ind/Dem amendments calling for ratification to be frozen until intelligible drafts of the treaty were available. And I voted IN FAVOUR of the motion calling for the wishes of the Irish people to be respected.

I am personally in favour of referendums in every country. But I don't believe it is up to the EU to mandate the form of ratification. That is for each nation to decide, according to its own traditions. Obviously, I'd like the Greeks and Finns and Slovaks to get the vote. But I'm not a Greek or a Finn or a Slovak, so it isn't up to me.

Ah, the niceties of political discourse, eh?

Spot the difference

The Not The I Want A Referendum chickens...

It seems that the LibDems are under pressure from I Want A Referendum.

As I rounded the corner I saw a person dressed as a chicken standing at the LibDem’s entrance. The chicken was accompanied by two people handing out leaflets. Leaflets for what you may ask? I Want a Referendum of course.

It’s not easy being a LibDem; hounded by the press, mocked by bloggers and, perhaps worst of all, stalked by giant chickens unhappy with your failure to back a referendum on the EU Treaty.

Well, that's nice; however, I'm sure that I've heard about people dressing up as chickens and demanding a referendum in a public somewhere else.

Oh, yes...

The Irish can go fuck themselves...

... , is the humble opinion of the European Parliament's members, according to England Expects.

Amendment 32 of the Corbett Report on the Lisbon Treaty read,

2. 1. Undertakes to respect the outcome of the referendum in Ireland.

Pretty non controversial you would have thought. After all everybody here in the Parliament reckons themselves democrats. So how can it be that the result of the vote was this...

• 129 in favour


• 499 Against


• 33 Abstentions.

And shall we have a look at the British MEPs who voted on the amendment?

• Yes
  Batten, Farage, Knapman, Nattrass, Titford, Deva



• No
  Attwooll, Davies, Duff, Hall, Ludford, Lynne, Newton Dunn, Wallis, Watson, Atkins, Beazley, Nicholson, Purvis, Cashman, Corbett, Corbey, Ford, Honeyball, Howitt, Hughes, Hutchinson , Kinnock, McAvan, , Martin David, Moraes, Morgan, Simpson, Sinner, Stihler, Titley, Willmott



• Abstain
  Ashworth, Bowis, Bradbourn, Bushill-Matthews, Callanan, Chichester, Dover, Evans Jonathan, Harbour, Jackson, Kirkhope, McMillan-Scott, Parish, Stevenson, Sturdy, Sumberg, Tannock, Van Orden, Hannan, Helmer, Wise.

So UKIP voted to respect the result of the Irish referendum. The Tories abstained (excepting the honourable exception of Nirj Deva). Labour and the Lib/Dems voted to ignore the Irish result.

So, essentially, it doesn't matter which way that cunt Twenty and his mates vote (even assuming that the regulars at Ron's are capable of signing a cross on anything other than their bar tabs), because the EP are just going to fucking ignore it anyway.

This is truly a disgrace. Don't ever listen to people like Richard Corbett lecturing people about democracy without ramming the words down his scrawny gizzard. If a Tory pontificates about how much they want to hear the voices of the people show them this voting list.

I expect nothing less from the Labour and LibDem traitors, but The Tories (and UKIPpers) who abstained should also be ashamed—especially Roger Helmer, who is the Hon. Chairman of The Freedom Association. And where were you, Hannan?

But I have special tortures reserved for the Tory MEPs who voted specifically against the Amendment: Christopher Beazley, John Purvis and "Sir" Robert Atkins (as far as I can see).

That makes another three lamp posts booked up...

UPDATE: Nosemonkey sums up the situation.

What we effectively have here is an admission that referenda will not count even if countries do hold them. An admission that the EU will simply ignore any member state that has concerns with the Lisbon Treaty, now that the elites have come to an agreement.

What we have here, in other words, is an admission that the European Parliament does not believe in democracy.

In that aspect, it is entirely an institution of the EU.

UPDATE 2: commenter Andy says that he contacted Dan Hannan about this.

I emailed Daniel Hannan to ask for clarification on his position and he says he did not abstain from this vote. He voted for it. I think it would be worth correcting this for the record.

Your humble Devil is happy to do so. But this does mean, then, that the EP voting record is incorrect. In which case, what—precisely—is the fucking point of it?