More government leaks – Letter from Dr Roy Spendlove to Dame Lucy

 

The following interesting letter has come to my attention:

 

Dear Lucy,

I am concerned to read that there could be an enquiry into the funding of UKIP partly from taxpayers money from the EU. Whilst civil servants should not condone possible misuse of funds and should at all times be impartial politically, we need to be savvy in the run up to important elections. We need to realise that there could be a political motive to these allegations against UKIP, and their timing is most unfortunate.

Our primary concern is the good and orderly conduct of government here in the UK, am important part of the EU. The last thing we want now is the disruption of a referendum on the UK’s membership, which the Coalition government has rightly prevented the Conservatives offering during this Parliament. I am of course entirely neutral when it comes to elections and who we should serve, but it would seem to be worrying if the public are dissuaded from voting for UKIP as opposed to the Conservatives  by the intervention of the authorities in allowing an enquiry into funding at this sensitive time. Our concern with the stability of our governing arrangements, and with ensuring Ministers do always accept and conform with our EU obligations, is made easier by the split in the Eurosceptic votes in recent elections. Is there anything we can do to ensure the forthcoming European election  is not affected unreasonably  by external enquiries and interventions?

I was very pleased to see – and hear – from leading businesses concerning the case for our continued  membership of the EU. It appears that the Liberal Democrat Ministers in the Coalition led by the Business Secretary  as well as the Deputy Prime Minister have been active and successful in flushing out the business case for staying.  However, our research and consultations tell us that business is becoming increasingly concerned to increase non EU trade rather than EU trade, given the temporary slower growth on the continent.  This makes it ever more imperative that we push ahead through the EU with trade agreements at EU level with the other important parts of the world. We need to be able to argue that all our trade, not just our EU trade, rests on our membership of the EU. I understand that the CBI is sympathetic to this approach.

The use of the 3 million unemployed figure  if we quite is coming under some pressure. It would be good to revisit this figure and show how many more jobs depend on our total world trade, as this too comes to depend on EU agreements.

 

Yours ever

 

Roy

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. Post a comment or leave a trackback: Trackback URL.

59 Comments

  1. Brian Taylor
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:13 am | Permalink

    Oh how we laughed at Yes Minister!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  2. arschloch
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:35 am | Permalink

    You are not worried about UKIP are you John? On the very same day you disclose this letter, your colleague Peter Luff decides to pass over an e mail to the “Daily Mail” from someone who left UKIP in 2012. All this sounds a little too coordinated to me. I am all in favour in having a politician’s views and past actions put under the spotlight, but its a bit rich coming from a party whose leader refuses to answer questions on what he did before he got into politics. etc ed

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6352401.stm

    Reply I do not take instruction from CCHQ on what to write about or what to write! Nor do I co-ordinate this blog with Mr Luff! Please try and come up with more realistic conspiracy stories.

    • Kenneth R Moore
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:45 am | Permalink

      I thought this piece was quite supportive of UKIP suggesting that the investigation into UKIP was politically motivated.
      The establishment knows that it cannot defeat UKIP by engaging with the arguments so they are trying smear tactics. I think most voters will see through this and it could possibly increase their support.

      • Hope
        Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:38 pm | Permalink

        Cameron just spent £18. Million pounds of taxpayers’ money on propaganda to promote a closer union to the EU. This is political and perhaps our money should not be used in this way. How JR claims the Tories party is Eurosceptic is beyond belief. There is a small minority of Eurosceptics in the Tory party, but they have no voice and hold no swaww ith the modernisers.

        A question for the metropolitan elite should be: Are your immigrant domestic staff receiving any working tax credits or work benefits? We need to know whether the taxpayer is subsidising the nannies of Clegg and Cameron or are they paying their staff a living wage? Only the brightest and the best will be allowed in Cameron claimed. We know he has no control over EU migrants, nor do they have any say overt he quality, skills or qualifications either.

        • Arschloch
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:24 pm | Permalink

          No just a fast track from Nepalese citizenship to being British

        • lifelogic
          Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

          We are subsidising most people earning less than about 35-40K PA. This when you look at schooling, universities, benefits, housing, roads, the NHS, elderly parents who might join them, defence, child benefit bureaucracy, the police, the legal system, the cost of the EU….

          Minimum wage people clearly make everyone poorer by lowering GDP per capita and lowering tax revenues per capita certainly in the short term and probably the long term too.

    • MickC
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 11:47 am | Permalink

      So we’ll just put it down to the Funny Coincidence Department!

      No we don’t think you are instructed by CCHQ, however there most certainly is a general “get UKIP” ethos abroad in the Conservative party.

      The effort would be best spent producing and promoting good Conservative policies-as UKIP does.

      Deserting your core vote is never a good strategy.

      Reply It is the Lib Dems currently pursuing a get UKIP strategy, not the Conservatives. I have not written anything adverse about UKIP is recent weeks.

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

        The tory party (and the BBC) is certainly interested in distorting anything UKIP people say to portray them as nutters & fruitcakes. The more they do it, the more stupid the pro EU. Cameron/Patten type Tories look. They simply have no rational arguments to put so take this childish approach.

  3. Lifelogic
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:11 am | Permalink

    Everyone knows that the EU is a net job destroyer with its over regulation , expensive energy cap, fishing laws and similar lunacies.

    Vote Cameron for a referendum just will not work though, not without a ukip deal and even then looks doubtful.

    Stupid suggestions from Miliband on yet more new laws to specially protect soldiers above others fron insults I see. What next red heads, short people, plump people, left handlers, vegetarians, politicians, smelly people …..

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:31 am | Permalink

      Tattooed people and people who took the country into a pointless damaging and losing war on a lie perhaps too need protection from insults by law too!

    • backofanenvelope
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 12:26 pm | Permalink

      This is a bit worrying as I am red haired (well, I was), short and plump!

  4. matthu
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:56 am | Permalink

    P.S. Could you also try to explain how the average TV viewer is meant to be able to tell when the BBC is telling the truth?

    After much circumlocution, prising and inevitable delay – which is pretty much standard for a request for information from the BBC – we hear via a FOI request that the BBC finally admits that it did in fact receive about £3m of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013 … only to discover via a website (http://ec.europa.eu/budget/fts/index_en.htm) that lets you search through the beneficiaries of funding from the EU budget paid by the Commission directly, that the BBC was in receipt of considerably more than this. In fact the EU website, dedicated to financial transparency – fancy being shown up by the EU on a matter of financial transparency – reveals that the BBC was in receipt of

    2007: 1,943,146 €
    2008: 6,336,295 €
    2009: 3,510,834 €
    2010: 6,131,907 €
    2011: 356,154 €
    2012: 5,269,083 €

    Should we assume that BBC output is now being tinged by the requirements of our masters in the EU Commission, and if so, how is the average TV viewer meant to be able to tell when the BBC is telling the truth?

    Perhaps you could refer my question to Lord P.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:36 am | Permalink

      “able to tell when the BBC is telling the truth”

      well almost never, usually only when not telling the truth would make them look very stupid to almost everyone.

      There is a clear and rather pernicious BBC agenda. It is always pro EU, anti UKIP, anti democracy in the UK, pro quack greenery, daft expensive energy and the Catastrophic AGW agenda, anti real science, anti car, plane & truck, pro train & bike, anti the rich, landlords and bankers, pro uncontrolled immigration, pro ever more government, ever more regulation and ever higher tax rates.

      One assumes Cameron appointed Lord Patten and Patten Tony Hall (yet another Oxford PPE chap I note) to ensure this pernicious, misguided agenda continues.

      How can you have a valid democracy when voters taxes are used to distort the whole debate with endless propaganda?

    • uanime5
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:55 pm | Permalink

      In 2012/13 the BBC’s license fee income was £3,656 million. As the €5,269,083 (about £4,369,635) is only 0.12% of the license fee income it’s clear that the small amount of money the BBC gets from the EU won’t have any effect on their broadcasts.

      • alan jutson
        Posted March 10, 2014 at 9:09 am | Permalink

        Uni

        If it is so small, then why ask for it or even accept it !

        You can always say no !

        I certainly would not allow myself to be open to the charge of favouring anyone for any sum, and did when in business, let alone what you call a pittance.

      • Martyn G
        Posted March 10, 2014 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

        I have either completely lost the plot or that there is something wrong with your calculations, Uni. You say the BBC license income was (in round terms) £3.65 million and the EU award was £4.36 million yet conclude that the EU award amounted to only 0.12% of the license income.
        If your figures are correct the EU actually funded the BBC to the tune of around £710,000 more than did UK license payers (£4.36 minus £3.65 million). If, as per your figures, the BBC gets more money from the EU than it does from UK license payers that raises serious thoughts as to the reasons why, does it not?

  5. alan jutson
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 8:06 am | Permalink

    Roy

    What do you mean, Taxpayers money.

    Its our money, we can do what we like with it !

    May I remind you of the potential workings of the pocket money policy, which is still in the early stages of discussion.
    This should clarify things for you much further.

    Instead having to collect taxes from Salaries and wages, which can be set against certain allowances, credits and the like, we are now suggesting a sort of minimum wage for everyone, which will also be the maximum wage at the same time.

    Its so simple everyone should be able to understand it, indeed it is so simple as to be foolproof, we collect all of the money due to be paid to anyone working and simply give them their set wage, and keep the rest to spend as we wish.

    A bit like giving children pocket money really, hence the name of the proposed policy.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 11:10 am | Permalink

      The term “Taxpayers money” surely makes clear it is individuals money and not that of governments to waste!

      • alan jutson
        Posted March 9, 2014 at 7:02 pm | Permalink

        LL

        It was a reply to Roy from Lucy.

  6. Douglas Carter
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 8:23 am | Permalink

    …’We need to be able to argue that all our trade, not just our EU trade, rests on our membership of the EU.’…

    The only – *only* – way of arguing that would be to lie about it. Not that there would be a shortage of figures willing to do such a thing.

    …’The use of the 3 million unemployed figure if we quite is coming under some pressure.’…

    Rather out of character. He’s right. Albeit the more accurate method of making the point would be to say ‘The ‘three million jobs’ meme (originated in 2000) reliably trotted out by those who do not wish to engage in a debate with regard to EU membership has been long-discredited. First, by the agency which was originally commissioned to produce the data.’

    Interesting the central desperation within this letter. So weak are the political reasons for EU membership, apparently economic reasons to remain irrevocably wedded to an economically-declining (as conceded in text) administration need to be invented?

    Presumably you’ll be writing to Mr. Spendlove with regard to this letter Mr. Redwood? I would suggest Messrs. Lidington, Hague and Cash would also benefit from a copy of this letter and your follow-up?

    • uanime5
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:58 pm | Permalink

      ‘The ‘three million jobs’ meme (originated in 2000) reliably trotted out by those who do not wish to engage in a debate with regard to EU membership has been long-discredited. First, by the agency which was originally commissioned to produce the data.’

      Care to explain who exactly discredited this claim. You seem to have forgotten to include the name of the agency that was commissioned to produce this data.

      • Douglas Carter
        Posted March 10, 2014 at 7:59 am | Permalink

        Far be it for me to quote another regular contributor here, but as the redoubtable Denis Cooper would probably say, this sort of thing has been made clear to you before and it has been dogmatically discarded by your brain.

        I myself might say something on the lines of ‘do your own research’ but ultimately that would be academic. There are links I could add here should I have chosen – it would have been easier than even typing so much as I have already done here. It would be a waste of effort. No matter what might be presented to you, you have already decided in advance it’s:-

        (i) Wrong.

        (ii) A lie.

        (iii) Propaganda.

        So, in the aspect you wilfully choose not to challenge your own views on the matters at hand, whereas many of us ourselves out here who are quite accomplished at that culture, there seems little point you asking people to heap information in your lap when you are devoid of the intentions to learn from it. Life – as they say – is too short.

        The information is out there. The only thing preventing you from finding it is the intentions to do so. That’s your dilemma, not mine.

        • Douglas Carter
          Posted March 10, 2014 at 9:40 am | Permalink

          Maybe a wee bit unfair this early in the week. I have no doubt you’re absolutely committed to research so if you genuinely wish to know when the ‘Three Million Jobs’ myth was demolished, and by whom (multiple sources) then you only need to search in the current terms:

          ‘The Boiling Frog’ – Blog.

          ‘Witterings from Witney’ – Blog.

          ‘Autonomous Mind’ – Blog.

          ‘EU Referendum’ – Blog.

          Several of us here already contribute to those outlets, so when indeed you have sought the information, I have no doubt we’ll see you there?

          You will be seeking the information, won’t you….?….

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 10, 2014 at 1:20 pm | Permalink

        Care to explain why in 2000 the author of an NIESR report said about this false claim by Britain in Europe that it was a gross distortion of his work and even said that it was worthy of Goebbels?

  7. Tony Harrison
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 8:59 am | Permalink

    Your reference to a “split in the Eurosceptic votes” is rather naughty, Mr Redwood, as you well know: not only is the Conservative Party led by a man firmly wedded to the EU (his ritual, specious protestations of “Euroscepticism” aside) it is overwhelmingly not “Eurosceptic”, as evidenced by its long history of sulky grumbling while at the same time obeying EU/ECHR directives – indeed gold-plating these – and keeping us tied ever more firmly to the apron-strings of Brussels. And the voting record of Tory Members in this Parliament, whenever “Eurosceptic” pseudo-rebellion came to the fore, speaks for itself.

    • Jennifer A
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:38 am | Permalink

      If the Tory party had split decades ago then by now we’d have had a strong and viable Eurosceptic party.

      So why didn’t it happen ? Why don’t we have a viable Eurosceptic party ?

      For the life of me I can’t see any difference in our long term heading whether we choose Conservative or let Labour in. In fact Labour will bring things to a head sooner which would be better for the country in the long run.

      It’s important to state that none of us here wanted things to be like this.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:44 am | Permalink

      Well we shall see shortly (in May) that it is the Tories (who will clearly be in a poor third place) that are splitting the EUsceptic vote.

      No one wants to have to watch Cameron rat on them yet again post 2015 they would rather have even the dreadful, state sector union man Miliband.

      Has Cameron decided what powers he even wants back yet, for his pathetic fig leaf? He needs another word like Major’s “subsidiarity” con.

    • forthurst
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 11:34 am | Permalink

      “And the voting record of Tory Members in this Parliament, whenever “Eurosceptic” pseudo-rebellion came to the fore, speaks for itself.”

      What we don’t know, of course, is the extent to which some of these are in the closet, in a party operating a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy towards those practising euroscepticism in private, in order to facilitate those Members’ ascent of the well lubricated pole. Those who have come out have damaged their careers but may be able to sleep more soundly at night.

  8. Mike Stallard
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:20 am | Permalink

    I am not going to be clever and reply in kind, but this makes me shiver. It is so terribly true…

    If only we had a Tony Abbott here in UK like Australia. Someone who could unite the eurosceptic vote. Someone who could actually get the conservative vote out to beat the TU inspired Labour Party with all the rigged postal votes and the unfair boundary system.

    I especially loved the pretence of fair play in the letter.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:48 am | Permalink

      Indeed and amazingly he did a MA in Philosophy, Politics and Economics as a Rhodes Scholar at The Queen’s College, Oxford.

      The exception that proves the rule. They are not quite all politically unsound just the ones Cameron uses.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:02 pm | Permalink

      to beat the TU inspired Labour Party with all the rigged postal votes

      So you believe that anything which doesn’t benefit your party is rigged. As the Conservatives are mainly supported by older member of society surely it would benefit the Conservatives more because these people are less able to go out and vote.

      the unfair boundary system.

      Well if the Conservatives hadn’t alienated the Lib Dems by withdrawing the Lord’s reform bill they would have been able to change the boundaries.

  9. oldtimer
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:22 am | Permalink

    The stakes are high so I expect that dirty tricks will abound.

    On a related topic, Under the headline “Get them young: Merkel plans EU education” (Daily Telegrapgh p13, 5th March 2014) I read that Angela Merkel is in favour of doctoring the education of children (across Europe) to encourage a more Europhile slant. It is part of the manifesto of the European People`s Party (EPP) for a five year campaign to transform the EU into a “genuine political union”. The DT reports that the programme calls for the introduction of “EU education in schools across Europe to prepare the next generation for future challenges and to nurture a European approach”. In short, it is a blatant attempt to brainwash young children.

    • oldtimer
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:45 am | Permalink

      PS to my earlier post. Mike Smithson (of politicalbetting.com) asks why there is an absence of polling on the forthcoming EU elections. He speculates: “I just wonder whether the lack of polling is part of a desire not to fuel the UKIP surge”. I suspect he is right about this.

      Whether this will work as a ploy seems doubtful to me. An important element of the UKIP support comes from those who tend not to vote, or are disaffected former Conservative or Labour supporters who are energised by Farage because a vote for UKIP is the best way to shift the policies of the two main parties on the EU. The Clegg-Farage TV debates will be much more influential.

      Reply If UKIP thought polls were helpful to them they could commission some, but they clearly do not.

      • oldtimer
        Posted March 10, 2014 at 9:51 am | Permalink

        Reply to reply: he was referring to the national pollsters such as ICM, YouGov and ComRes not to polls commissioned by the political parties.

        Reply There are “national” polls like these when someone pays for them. Clearly not many people want to pay for Euro election polls, but UKIP could if they think it would help them. They could still buy an “independent” “national” poll from a reputable pollster.

    • M Davis
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:50 am | Permalink

      Home-School-Education! Home-School-Education! Home-School-Education!

      It’s the only way to beat the brainwashers of our children, unfortunately, a lot of people cannot afford to home school.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:50 am | Permalink

      Indeed indoctrination at Schools and in Exams by governments and “charities” is pernicious – particularly on the role of government, the EU and the green religion.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:52 am | Permalink

      “a blatant attempt to brainwash young children” – even more than the existing BBC think brainwashing that is in schools.

    • bigneil
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:39 pm | Permalink

      Should be a good battle between this and the alleged “Trojan Horse” plot in Birmingham schools.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:04 pm | Permalink

      The DT reports that the programme calls for the introduction of “EU education in schools across Europe to prepare the next generation for future challenges and to nurture a European approach”. In short, it is a blatant attempt to brainwash young children.

      Wasn’t Gove planning to do the same thing by forcing schools to manipulate history classes so they’d be praising everything the UK did.

      • oldtimer
        Posted March 10, 2014 at 9:38 am | Permalink

        My understanding of the Gove reforms of the syllabus was to reintroduce historical events and trends that were and remain significant in the evolution of the UK as we know it. I believe these had been removed during the period of the last Labour governments. I also believe that these changes were widely welcomed especially by those with any understanding of our island history.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 10, 2014 at 1:23 pm | Permalink

        Heaven forbid that anybody should ever praise anything the UK did.

  10. Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:30 am | Permalink

    There’s two things here…

    1. The pointed refusal to acknowledge or recognise that EU membership is a political condition that determines who runs Britain

    2. Complete ignorance of the fact we cannot force the EU to conclude more trade deals urgently to make the economic argument the Europhile argument seems to depend on, because the other parties (e.g. the US) might not like the deals

    The debate on EU membership has to focus upon the question of who should run Britain.

    The immediate period that follows the invoking of Article 50 of TEU enables the member state and the EU to agree a framework for the state’s future relationship with the union. That is where economic matters can be addressed, such as interim arrangements dealing with trade to allow continued access to the internal market and extension of third country deals with the EU to the newly independent UK.

    The political settlement is not acceptable. It is that which needs to be changed. We cannot let that central matter be set aside or degraded by the Europhiles turning the argument into one of economics and deploying fear, uncertainty and doubt to scare people into continuing with the unacceptable political settlement.

  11. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 9:36 am | Permalink

    An interesting article in the Telegraph has come to my attention:
    “Merkel backs call for EU school lessons to counter ‘growing Euro-scepticism’ ….School students should be given a “European Union education” in the classroom to tackle “ignorance” and growing public Euro-scepticism, according to an election manifesto signed by Angela Merkel and eight other of Europe’s leaders…. Rather than scaling back the EU, the EPP will campaign around a five-year programme that will aim to transform the EU into “a genuine political union”.
    The German Chancellor and the leaders of Ireland, Poland, Spain, Hungary, Portugal, Greece, Cyprus and Latvia launched the manifesto were in Dublin on Friday.
    Jean-Claude Juncker, the former prime minister of Luxembourg, was chosen by the EPP on Friday to be its leading candidate during the EU elections and as contender to be the next president of the European Commission in October this year.
    Mr Juncker, 59, is a passionate supporter of the idea of a “United States of Europe” and chaired meetings of the eurozone at the height the EU single currency’s debt crisis until he resigned as Luxembourg’s leader amid a scandal over illegal phone-tapping.
    “I am totally in favour. The knowledge of Europe has to be deepened in school programmes,” he said. “There is ignorance about the basics and this was evident during the so-called euro crisis.”
    In 2011, Mr Juncker courted controversy when he was caught on tape saying that he “had to lie” in his role as chairman of the eurozone and that important economic decisions could only be taken in “dark secret rooms”.
    “I’m ready to be insulted as being insufficiently democratic, but I want to be serious,” he said on a video recorded by the EUobserver website. “When it becomes serious, you have to lie.””

    You must surely agree with Nigel Farage, as the Telegraph went on to report:
    ” the leader of Ukip accused the alliance of European leaders of wanting “to squeeze children into a one-size-fits-all scheme of thought”.

    “After destroying national economies and losing the political argument the EU thought police now want the mind of your children in their hands,” he said.”
    Little hope of the faux promise of renegotiation espoused by your mendacious leader.

  12. Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:15 am | Permalink

    It is interesting to note that Germany’s biggest trading partner is Russia and not countries within the EU.
    It says something about whether we need to be in the EU to trade, and whether Germany’s attitude towards the Ukraine is influenced by their need to trade with Russia.

  13. behindthefrogs
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 11:40 am | Permalink

    When we vote for MEPs we expect them to represent our views in the European parliament. Thus while I could justify voting UKIP in a UK election and possibly but doubtfully in local elections, I cannot understand voting UKIP in european elections. We need MEPs who are going to attend the parliament and vote on all matters in a way that is in the UKs best interests. Not voting simply means that other countries with different interests are more likely to get their way.
    A vote for UKIP in the European elections is a vote against looking after Britain’s interests. Not just a wasted vote, but a vote for other countries to control our country. Surely just the opposite of what the party claims to stand for.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 10, 2014 at 2:21 pm | Permalink

      “When we vote for MEPs we expect them to represent our views in the European parliament.”

      I don’t recall ever being asked whether I wanted my views to be represented in a transnational assembly where even with all of them combined the members elected in this country would always be a small minority, currently 9.5% of the total members; I check and I find nothing at all in the government’s official pamphlet for the 1975 referendum urging us to vote to stay in the EEC because then we could still have our views represented in the European parliament; maybe it was thought that to emphasise that would persuade few to vote to stay in and might persuade more to vote to leave, as they could have correctly suspected that this was part of a new system of government which was intended to supplant our national democratic system; I have to confess that the elections in 1979, 1984, 1989 and 1994 completely passed me by, I suppose I must have got polling cards but I had no interest in it at all, like the great majority of people in this country as shown by the turnouts for those elections tabulated and plotted here:

      http://www.ukpolitical.info/european-parliament-election-turnout.htm

      I only started to take an interest in 1999 when the electoral system changed to a form of PR, and that was not because I wanted my views to be represented but because I wanted UKIP members in there to tell us the truth of what was going on, rather than having just the sanitised versions we would get from the people wangled in by other parties, many of whom were (and still are) overt or covert eurofederalists.

  14. Posted March 9, 2014 at 1:19 pm | Permalink

    Amusing, yes but there are more important issues that need to be debated now.

    I see in the Telegraph that the SNP are claiming a share of UK owned assets in England, Wales and NI !

    It seems that if the Scots vote for independence we are expected to pay them a large cash sum to keep ownership of hospitals, government buildings etc in the other nations of the UK.

    Apart from the bare faced cheek of the very idea, I would have thought that there was a disproportionate amount of Civil Servants and Quangos based in Scotland in the same way as there are in Wales : The DVLA located in Swansea is an example that springs to mind.

    As James Kirkup says in his piece, it’s about time the English had independent representation at this table because we have no say of any kind.

    Can there be any doubt that, whether it’s independence or DevoMax, we English will be sold down the river without anything like the same degree of Devolution awarded to Scotland or by an over-generous independence settlement.

    In either event, the disadvantageous terms will be devised by our Civil Service and Government Ministers will accept them in a forlorn hope of retaining friendly relationships with Edinburgh.

  15. Denis Cooper
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 1:55 pm | Permalink

    So let me get this straight.

    What you are implying is that if I stubbornly vote for UKIP in the May elections for the EU Parliament, rather than doing as you would like me to do by dutifully voting for the Conservative party list, including not only all the candidates who want us to stay in the EU but probably some who would secretly welcome the EU becoming a federal United States of Europe, then not only will I be helping Miliband – heard that one before, of course – but also pleasing this fictional Dr Roy Spendlove?

    Gosh, that certainly makes me think twice about whether to cast my precious vote for a party which under its constitution is committed to what I actually want, withdrawal from the EU, or instead give it to a party whose leaders are totally committed to keeping us in the EU by hook or by crook and quite irrespective of the further damage that would do to both our economy and our democracy.

  16. Tony Sebo
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:04 pm | Permalink

    Why don’t genuinely Eurosceptic MPs blow the establishment stitch up wide open?

    We all know that the establishment are fully behind the drive that will see our democratic control given over to a small clique in the EU, because THEY will be part of that clique.

    At the very least, Eurosceptics must fore the debate onto the open ground, make Europhiles argue their case from the actual ideology they support, rather than allowing them to wrap their blatherings in the language of intergovernmentalism and even nationalism.

    Every time that I see Clegg, et al, going on about fighting ‘our corner’ at the heart of the EU it reminds me just how corrupted the whole issue is.

    Get the fundamentals right. John. You should start this by doing so every time that you appear on the TV.

  17. Leslie Singleton
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:18 pm | Permalink

    Given that the EU trades so much with Russia, so one reads, Russia clearly should be made to join the EU so that Brussels can tell them where they are going wrong in their thinking (or should it be the other way round with the EU joining Russia in a new mega Union?); on a different tack I wonder what proportion of Crimeans don’t so much want to to join Russia as to stay free from the EU. The EU has done such a good job of making me despise it that I no longer feel I want to be on the side of “The West” when I read the papers. And I regard the International Law guff being spouted about the situation in Crimea as hogwash though gr8 fun for lawyers I am sure.

  18. Bert Young
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

    UKIP will sweep the board in the forthcoming EU election and , the result , will present an enormous challenge to deeply unpopular Cameron . Norman Tebbit’s recent blog absolutely lambasted Cameron and made a strong case for Home Rule . All that is needed is for a figure like Tebbit to declare his/her support for UKIP and the job is done . Many Conservative seats will be lost to UKIP in the General Election unless a new credible leader takes over for the Conservatives ; this has to happen very soon . Any argument to stay in the EU – reformed or otherwise , is futile ; the public are fed up with all the parties as they presently are with little trust in the leaders . Farage comes across as a breath of fresh air .

    Reply The latest poll shows Labour in first place in the European election with the Conservatives ahead of UKIP, splitting the Eurosceptic vote to give it to the federalists.

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:15 pm | Permalink

      Comment on Reply–Does it matter, do you think, that it is entirely the Conservatives’ fault that the vote is split? If they had not waited so long to take – sorry that should read to be forced to take – what passes for their in any event half-hearted at best scepticism UKIP would not exist. Say what you like about UKIP but at least they don’t talk out of both sides of their mouth at once. I do not believe the latest poll results (wherever they came from) for a moment and would readily bet money against them (what do the bookies say?).

  19. Denis Cooper
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:32 pm | Permalink

    (Unsubstantiated allegation against UKIP removed ed)
    Meanwhile the European People’s Party has held a pre-election congress in Dublin:

    http://euobserver.com/foreign/123396

    “Centre-right leaders give Ukraine hope of EU membership”

    That presumptuous Ukrainian woman Yulia Tymoshenko was treated as a heroine and given a standing ovation, and Angela Merkel said:

    “Ukrainian people have the same right for freedom and democracy as we have in the EU.”

    adding:

    “And the same goes for the people in Moldova, Georgia, Belarus, Armenia and Azerbaijan.”

    So it is clear that the Ukraine would only be the beginning of yet another phase of EU enlargement, which would end up on the western shores of the Caspian Sea; and of course Hague wrote his “referendum block” law to make sure that even if all those peoples had their respective national referendums on whether they wanted their countries to join the EU (and later the euro) the British people would never have a referendum on whether they wanted any of those countries to be allowed to join.

    The article doesn’t say who paid for that EPP event in Dublin but (maybe we should ask to ensure none of the costs were paid for out of tax revenues ed).

    * Sorry, I didn’t really mean “pro-EU propaganda”, I meant “campaigns and activities to provide the citizens with information about the EU”.

  20. BobE
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 2:37 pm | Permalink

    100 years later and without a shot fired Germany makes a third attempt to dominate Europe.

  21. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 6:17 pm | Permalink

    Mr Clegg said today it all about jobs and there is an attempt to be air brushed out of the EU.Have just been to German Aldi ; a very good store indeed. The best around for a couple of years.

  22. uanime5
    Posted March 9, 2014 at 10:09 pm | Permalink

    I am concerned to read that there could be an enquiry into the funding of UKIP partly from taxpayers money from the EU.

    Well it would be ironic if UKIP was benefiting from the EU.

    which the Coalition government has rightly prevented the Conservatives offering during this Parliament.

    Well it being a private members bill did result in it being given less time in parliament than if it was a government bill.

    This makes it ever more imperative that we push ahead through the EU with trade agreements at EU level with the other important parts of the world.

    Something that the UK currently doesn’t have because the EU is a larger market than the UK, which enables it to negotiate better deals.

    The use of the 3 million unemployed figure if we quite is coming under some pressure.

    Well companies that mainly trade with the EU aren’t going to remain outside the EU when it’s more profitable to relocate inside the EU.

    • Lindsay McDougall
      Posted March 10, 2014 at 3:25 pm | Permalink

      For a persistent apologist for a German led European Empire, uanime5 is a bit of a tame nom de plume. Bearing in mind that Germany is leading calls for the EU to acquire a military capability, perhaps Lord Haw Haw would be better.

  23. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted March 10, 2014 at 3:05 pm | Permalink

    I wish that I still found this sort of thing funny, but the EU has caused me to lose some of my sense of humour.

    I did ask the question on an earlier occasion – what would the outcome be if a referendum was held on the question “Do you wish the UK to be dragged kicking and screaming into a European Federation?”?

    I don’t recall receiving many responses to that question. Nor did I receive many responses to my suggestion that if Her Majesty could be persuaded to appoint 500 Eurosceptic peers, James Wharton’s Referendum Bill might stand a better chance of becoming law.

Post a Comment

Your email is never published nor shared. Required fields are marked *

*
*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

  • About John Redwood

    John Redwood has been the Member of Parliament for Wokingham since 1987. First attending Kent College, Canterbury, he graduated from Magdalen College, and has a DPhil from All Souls, Oxford. A businessman by background, he has been a director of NM Rothschild merchant bank and chairman of a quoted industrial PLC.
  • John’s Books

  • Email Alerts

    You can sign up to receive John's blog posts by e-mail by entering your e-mail address in the box below.

    Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

    The e-mail service is powered by Google's FeedBurner service. Your information is not shared.

  • Map of Visitors

    Locations of visitors to this page