The EU debate

 

                    Mr Clegg bombed badly in the debate last night. He majored on the lie that 3 million jobs would be  at risk if we left the EU, an argument often debunked on this website. Let’s hope after another airing of the main reasons why this is untrue we can put that canard to bed once and for all. Germany sell us more cars than we sell them, so why would they want to damage that trade? No sensible Eurosceptic wants to damage our trade, nor do our European partners who make so much money out of us. The German government has told us it would want good trade arrangements with us if we left the EU. It is only the Europhiles who have such a low view of our partners in  the EU that they think they would spite themselves to do us damage!

                     The public adjudged Mr Clegg the loser. They warmed to Mr Clegg when he said thanks to the EU we can get criminals back here to stand trial, despite the obvious counter that we would have extradition arrangements with the EU countries if we did not form part of the criminal justice measures of the current EU.

               A recent good piece of research from Business for Britain shows how the UK has opposed just 55 new EU laws since 1996. Labour lived through whole years (e.g. 2006,2008) without opposing a single EU measure, so worried were they about having a disagreement with the Commission. Despite this every one of those 55 measures are now good EU law and therefore apply to the country which opposed them. No sign then of the EU coming our way or the UK having lots of influence.

             The UK has just 3.6% of the EU Commission, 8.2% of the votes in the Council of Ministers and 9.5% of the MEPs, as Business for Britain has recently reminded us.  No wonder we rarely influence policy and rarely stop laws we do not like. The Pro EU case suffered a bad blow last night as it revealed its dependence on a falsehood about jobs. We were told we would lose lots of those jobs if we did not join the Euro, a prediction which turned out to be false. The pro EU forces  need to change the record if they are win back lost support in the country.

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

141 Comments

  1. Douglas Carter
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:24 am | Permalink

    Ultimately any figure who rests the case for EU endorsement on economics or trade is proceeding from a false prospectus from the very start. The EU is a Political body and its purpose is that of political integration. The real debate is a UK (or any nation state) internal one. Who governs your country? Do your electorate send their own representatives to represent them, or do they send representatives to hand that representation over to a more distant, and less accountable body?

    As per your missive from Mr. ‘Spendlove’ in recent days Mr. Redwood, that the pro-EU activists need to invent counter points (….’We need to be able to argue that all our trade, not just our EU trade, rests on our membership of the EU.’… http://johnredwoodsdiary.com/2014/03/09/more-government-leaks-letter-from-dr-roy-spendlove-to-dame-lucy/ – link to your own article) which are less bizarre fantasies, more intentional lies demonstrates the fundamental extremism behind Europhilia. (Unless I’ve missed some kind of ‘fact’ that demonstrates that no nation external to the EU is capable of any form of trade? Because that’s what that strange statement implies?) Similarly as per research made by many others, the UK will still have influence in the bodies which formulate World trade and standards, whilst a nation still has an individual representative seat in Single Market negotiations – and the single market is not ‘The EU’.

    However, on a notional point, ….’He majored on the lie that 3 million jobs would be at risk if we left the EU, an argument often debunked on this website.’….

    It would be nice if just the once, the current Prime Minister would make precisely that point, when his uninformed junior once again repeats the – long discredited – lie.

    • Hope
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

      JR, I find it worrying that so many journalists have expressed odd views about the debate. Surely they must have better knowledge on the EU and would know why the public would favour Farage’s truth against Clegg’s lies. Very odd.

      I find it even more difficult to understand why some Tories are in support of Clegg, they will be tarnished with the same brush i.e he does not tell the truth and is prepared to say anything to a get a vote. If the UK joined the Euro as Clegg (key figures in the Tories the same) wished, the UK would be financially sunk. His scare stories are no better this time around. Tell Spanish and Italian people about the Euro or the thousands who protested against it in Spain last weekend- Clegg has family ties there and should know first hand.

      If there were any doubt about his stupidity then the article in the Guardian about university tuition fees would make it absolutely clear that he lied to his student voters for absolutely nothing in return. However, EU students get free university education in this country!

      Why Cameron wanted to tie himself to the Lib Dems demonstrates, once more, his total lack of judgement. As Farage pointed out last night, Cameron thought it was a success to cut the EU budget with the UK paying more! What a dope.

      • uanime5
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:40 pm | Permalink

        Tell Spanish and Italian people about the Euro or the thousands who protested against it in Spain last weekend

        Those protests in Spain were against austerity measures, social spending cuts and unemployment. Though they opposed the Euro-pact they opposed it because it would increase competition and give more money to bankers. The Spanish weren’t protesting against the euro.

        • Mark B
          Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:36 am | Permalink

          Indirectly they were. It is because they are part of the EURO and the ECB and Germany will not print money is the reason for the austerity.

          • Hope
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:37 am | Permalink

            Tell that to the thousands who have left Spain to find work, ie the 40,000 who registered for National insurance in the UK last year. Uni, your points do not stand up to scrutiny.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:37 pm | Permalink

      Do your electorate send their own representatives to represent them, or do they send representatives to hand that representation over to a more distant, and less accountable body?

      By that logic we should oppose MPs because they’re more distant and less accountable than local councillors.

      Unless I’ve missed some kind of ‘fact’ that demonstrates that no nation external to the EU is capable of any form of trade? Because that’s what that strange statement implies?

      They can trade with the EU but either have to obey all EU law, or are subject to tariffs and quotas.

      Similarly as per research made by many others, the UK will still have influence in the bodies which formulate World trade and standards

      And this influence is even less than our influence in the EU because more countries are involved.

      • Hope
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

        No, the UK is a member of the security council, and could be a voice by itself if it was not in hue he Eau at the WTO. Many countries trade, and have all sorts of agreements without having to be in the EU. But we all know this is not about trade, commerce etc. it is a political construct to create an EU superstate and to rid nation states of their culture, customs and identity to fulfil its goal. It will not work. Dictatorships only ever last for a defined period of time.

      • Bob
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:43 am | Permalink

        @uanime5

        They can trade with the EU but either have to obey all EU law

        Are there any industrialised countries that allow imports that do not comply with their laws?

      • Douglas Carter
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:56 am | Permalink

        Local councillors have no place in Parliament formulating and amending policy and law. They conduct their offices by means of law directed through Parliament. So the comparison is irrelevant.

        UK trade is roughly 80% internal, 10% non-EU and growing, and 10% EU and shrinking due to its decline. By membership outside the EU of the Single Market, we can have influence in those single market regulations (as you have been told repeatedly before) and conduct EU-specific regulated trade with the EU alone. UK internal regulation and non-EU trading is by definition excluded from those strictures. Once again, the EU is not a trading zone. It is a programme for political and international integration.

        As far as tariffs and quotas – and for the final time – the fantasy that exporting nations will intentionally harm trade in a petulant spat is a delusion of the Europhiles only. As I’ve said before, I’m not jumping through hoops or adding links for you that have already decided to disbelieve. That’s been done plenty of times for you in the past and you remain locked in your own version of reality. No-one here can help you out of that, even if they wanted to. You don’t have the courage to challenge your own views. Hence the debate has proceeded many leagues beyond your capabilities.

  2. lojolondon
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:36 am | Permalink

    I enjoyed the show. Particularly the afterparty. John, I have to give you credit, you were about the only person who saw a good win for Nigel (perhaps along with Guido, who said he ‘edged it’. Interesting how the left-wing mainstream media did not see it that way. The first 30 minutes was full of ‘journalists’ saying how it was a really, really close thing, some giving the edge to Clegg, some giving the edge to Farage. Apologetic grimace from one lady saying ‘sorry, I think Nigel just edged it’.

    30 minutes later, YouGov, the Labour-startup polling company (literally married to the EU), delivered the verdict of the British public. Thus graphically exposing the massive gap between the Westminster elite / journalists and the people they represent. Says it all, really.

    Next week the Biased BBC will be frantic to put a stop to this, so will be tempted to load the dice against Nigel like they always do – audience, compere and questions loaded in Clegg’s favour.

    BUT – with the changes the BBC is facing, can they afford to expose themselves like that within a week of the vote in parliament, and all the sudden negative publicity they have been exposed to?

    It seems like a good week for normal people – Farage wins, EU damage to Britain exposed on national TV, MSM bias exposed, BBC licence fees under review. A feeling, as a Conservative, that I haven’t had for 25 years – when Margaret Thatcher was in charge!

    • sjb
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:40 am | Permalink

      lojolondon wrote: YouGov, the Labour-startup polling company (literally married to the EU), delivered the verdict of the British public [on the tv debate].

      Clegg 36 – 57 Farage. [1] It will be interesting to see if the debate influences the next In/Out poll; on Monday (24th) there was a majority in favour of remaining in the EU. [2]

      [1] http://yougov.co.uk/news/categories/politics/
      [2] http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/03/26/eu-referendum-highest-lead-two-years/

    • Timaction
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:08 am | Permalink

      Mr Farage exposed the lies that the legacy parties have been peddling for 40 years. Pretending its about trade and economics NOT the creation of a European State. 30/1048 spelt it out in 1971 and the tired old parties have to pretend its their failing laws and directives not the unpopular EU dictatorship that has its fingers in every pie.
      Its time the people knew the lies spun by out of touch Westminster.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:44 pm | Permalink

      30 minutes later, YouGov, the Labour-startup polling company (literally married to the EU), delivered the verdict of the British public. Thus graphically exposing the massive gap between the Westminster elite / journalists and the people they represent.

      A YouGov poll of 1,003 voters isn’t definitive in a country with 60 million people.

      BUT – with the changes the BBC is facing, can they afford to expose themselves like that within a week of the vote in parliament, and all the sudden negative publicity they have been exposed to?

      Care to explain what changes, vote in parliament, and negative publicity you’re referring to.

      • Hope
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:40 am | Permalink

        Very desperate Uni. The MSM have gone into overdrive to portray a picture that does not exist. Your socialist views will not change what people think and the debate did not alter that view either. I suspect people have made up their mind that the auk needs to leave the EU.

  3. Mike Stallard
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:39 am | Permalink

    I must say, I liked your measured contribution to the proceedings on TV.
    The biggest losers of all were the BBC who ought to have been at the forefront of this “debate”. Instead, because of their £20 million bung from the EU (Christopher Booker in the Telegraph), they chickened out.
    The next big fib to be exploded, I am afraid, is Mr Cameron’s promise to reform the EU. No way Jose (Manuel Barroso).

    • Leslie Singleton
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:14 am | Permalink

      Mike–I don’t think Cameron is lying about his wanting to reform the EU; but the only reason he wants reform is so that it will make it easier for him to maintain his position of wanting to stay In and to persuade the people to agree with him. What a great negotiating position he has taken up (joke), especially as there will be massive opposition from Brussels, who very obviously are not going just to give up the powers we have been tricked in to giving away. What we really need is two completely separate EU’s: one based on Trade and the other on Politics. I for one have never seen much reason for overlap between the two.

      • Mark B
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 7:50 pm | Permalink

        You cannot have two EU’s. You either have and EU that is your Federal Government, or not. You can be a member of EFTA and have access to the Single Market via an EEA membership or, you have bi-lateral arrangements similar to those of Switzerland.

  4. Old Albion
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:55 am | Permalink

    Clegg insults our intelligence with his europhile views. Then he insults me personally with the use of the ‘littleEngland’ expression. England,a country he and the government do not even recognise, except when they want to find a way of grabbing more tax. (tuition fees, prescription charges, hospital parking charges, stealing someones property to pay care fees etc.)

    • lojolondon
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 11:02 am | Permalink

      Agreed – Nigel missed a real chance to smash Clegg there with a comment about the EU plans to wipe England and the UK off the map forever with their plans for a new region called Arc Manche!! (Putting UK together with Northern France, and of course, giving us a French name!!)

    • behindthefrogs
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 2:03 pm | Permalink

      I found Nick Clegg very honest in the debate it was Nigel Fazrrage who insulted my intelligence. As to your comments about the government grabbing more tax perhaps you could put forward an alternative other than the fiction that it would all be better if we weren’t in Europe.

      • Denis Cooper
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

        You found Clegg “very honest”? I find that hard to credit.

        It’s just unfortunate that while Farage won he failed to crush Clegg on his brazen, unscrupulous, lies, such as:

        The old LIE that 3 million jobs depend on EU membership, a misrepresentation of the findings of an NIESR report more than a decade ago that was dismissed as worthy of Goebbels by the author of the report when it was first put forward by Britain in Europe.

        The more recent LIE that only 7% of our new laws come from the EU, and the LIE that this is the figure found by the House of Commons Library, see from 11.45 here:

        http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b03zjy4s/Daily_Politics_27_03_2014/

        And the stupid LIE previously told by the Tory loudmouth Anna Soubry, that the combined populations of Romania and Bulgaria are less than 29 million, easily checked, and see what the Guardian said in January:

        http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/jan/15/bulgarian-romanian-migration-uk-restrictions

        “Third, the combined populations of Romania and Bulgaria is around 29 million …”

        Like most eurofanatics Clegg has zero respect for the truth, and lie will do provided he thinks he can get away with it.

        • uanime5
          Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:06 pm | Permalink

          The old LIE that 3 million jobs depend on EU membership, a misrepresentation of the findings of an NIESR report more than a decade ago that was dismissed as worthy of Goebbels by the author of the report when it was first put forward by Britain in Europe.

          Funny how despite your claim that this was a misinterpretation of a report you weren’t able to state what the report actually said. Could it be because the report doesn’t back up your claim.

          The more recent LIE that only 7% of our new laws come from the EU, and the LIE that this is the figure found by the House of Commons Library, see from 11.45 here:

          The report by the House of Commons Library clearly states that 9.1% of the statutes and statutory instruments came from the EU, so the figure of 5-50% of UK law coming from the EU is clearly nonsense. As is Farage’s claim that 75% of UK law comes from the EU.

          And the stupid LIE previously told by the Tory loudmouth Anna Soubry, that the combined populations of Romania and Bulgaria are less than 29 million, easily checked, and see what the Guardian said in January:

          1) Around 29 million can mean more than 29 million but it can also mean less than 29 million. So your claim that Anna Soubry is wrong because of a vague sentence in the Guardian, rather than actually checking the population statistics for these countries, just shows you haven’t done any real research.

          2) According to the EU in 2017 the population of Bulgarian was 7.327 million and the population of Romanian was 20.1 million, so the combined population was 27 million. So Dennis Anna Soubry is correct and you were wrong.

          • Mark B
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:41 am | Permalink

            It does not matter whether it is 1% or 100% of EU legislation we have to adopt, I do not want it ! I do not wish a foreign power to have a say OVER our own Parliament and our OWN laws.

            I wish to live in an independent, sovereign UK that makes its own laws.

          • Timaction
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:34 am | Permalink

            It still means that there is free and unfettered access to this country from 485 million people. That’s what Clegg was trying to hide and pretend it was about benefits!
            We didn’t ask for or want this.
            We have an immigration crisis NOT a housing shortage.
            We are full and our public services are about to be overwhelmed. We are now having to wait or pay for private health care, if you can afford it!

          • Douglas Carter
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:42 am | Permalink

            …’Funny how despite your claim that this was a misinterpretation of a report you weren’t able to state what the report actually said. Could it be because the report doesn’t back up your claim.’…

            It’s already been placed in your lap how to find that information. You have not sought it because you have no intentions to do so. If you refuse to conduct research under circumstances where the information can be found immediately at hand, blame yourself and not others.

          • Bob
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:51 am | Permalink

            @uanime5

            So if the population totals are only 27 million we should be relaxed.

            as long as it’s not 29 million!

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

            As Douglas Carter has correctly pointed out, you were given enough information to find out for yourself, but to make it really easy you can check any of the references here:

            (references long winded and not conclusive concerning the allegation, so left out ed)
            This was a notorious incident, but maybe you are too young to remember it?

            Reply If an incident is contentious and could lead to legal action I leave it out.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 4:47 pm | Permalink

            As discussed before ad nauseam, the author of that report produced a new report in which he attempted to correct the egregious error he had made in his first report by ignoring almost all the EU Regulations which become laws in this country without Parliament having to lift a finger. If you could be bothered to watch that segment from the Daily Politics you would see Andrew Neil ripping into some LibDem woman over that false claim by Clegg, and she had no answer and tried to laugh it off.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 5:09 pm | Permalink

            No, after Anna Soubry attempted her Margaret Thatcher impersonation on QT and made that assertion that there were not even 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians it was immediately shown to be false, but of course that would not stop Clegg repeating it.

            29 million is a perfectly fair round number, especially taking into account that at the least 0.1 million of the 3.6 million Moldovans have been given Romanian passports, plus as I have read some Turks have been given Bulgarian passports.

            https://www.google.co.uk/#q=romania+population

            Romania – 21.33 million (2012)

            Bulgaria – 7.305 million (2012)

            21.33 + 7.31 = 28.64

            Of course UKIP has never said that all 29 million will come here, another lie from Clegg; the point is that unless the UK government and Parliament are prepared to break EU law we have no control over the numbers who do come, whether it was only 29 thousand or it was 29 million.

            If you recall, government sources briefed journalists that a relevant amendment to a Bill under consideration by our sovereign Parliament would be “illegal”.

            This is how the supporters of the EU hope to win a referendum, by repeating lies.

          • Denis Cooper
            Posted March 28, 2014 at 6:23 pm | Permalink

            I offered a range of references which came up on a simple google search, but as JR doesn’t like that I offer this one reference from back in 2003 when it was a quiet recent incident:

            http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1441399/Christopher-Bookers-Notebook.html

            “A lie that will not lie down

            The only entertainment to be derived from the glossy White Paper on the proposed EU constitution is to spot how many half-truths, lies and evasions it contains. One obvious example, on a page describing the benefits of EU membership to Britain, is the claim that “more than three million jobs” in Britain “depend on the EU”.

            This pseudo-statistic first appeared in 2000 when Britain in Europe used a report by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) to claim that, if Britain were not a member of the EU, 3.5 million jobs would disappear. Dr Martin Weale, the director of the NIESR, was so outraged by this misuse of his study that he called it “pure Goebbels”, and said: “In many years of academic research I cannot recall such a wilful distortion of the facts.”

            His report had in fact concluded that almost all of these jobs would exist whether Britain were a member or not. This did not prevent Tony Blair, Robin Cook and others parroting the “three million jobs” claim ad nauseam, and the White Paper repeats this dishonesty just as if Dr Weale had never refuted it.”

  5. Lifelogic
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:59 am | Permalink

    Poor Nick Clegg simply had no valid arguments to put and then spent an hour putting them. I particularly liked his slight of hand in claiming 50% of our exports went to the EU but only 8%? of the EU’s came to the UK. The 50% of ours, of course, being far less in value than the 8% of theirs. It also includes trade with Ireland (which has gone on fore donkeys years) and exports via Rotterdam etc. to the rest of the world.

    His other pathetic attack was accuse UKIP of saying X million would come to the UK when they perfectly correctly only said X million were free to come to the UK.

    People on around the minimum wage almost certainly cost the government far more than they ever pay in tax and also depress the wages of others hugely.

    Needless to say the BBC reporter thought the result was 50/50. The viewers thought Farage won very comfortably. Showing once again the huge pro EU/Libdum think bias in the BBC.

    Farage had all the valid arguments Clegg had non. One wonders if even Clegg really believes the drivel he came out with.

    Farage next make more of the 5+ times the value, wind and PV intermittent energy in the next debate and the absurd EU energy policy. Also the numbers of people who cannot afford to keep warm as a result.

    • lifelogic
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:40 am | Permalink

      You can see why Cameron could never agree to debate Farage or UKIP as Cameron’s position is dishonestly to pretend to agree fully with Nigel Farage (for pure cynical political reasons) while in practice doing the exact opposite behind the scenes when in power.

      Anyone who appoints Lord Patten types to the BBC and has Ed Davey, Ken Clark, Heseltine, David Laws, Greg Barker types assisting him is clearly a wrong-un.

      He is just a Ted Heath, John Major fake green, pro EU, big state, high tax, high waste & an electoral liability. Surely that is very clear to all.

      Still too late to change now.

    • Bob
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:53 am | Permalink

      @lifelogic
      Agree.

      Slick Clegg relied on sophistry. The fact that the Romanians and Bulgarians are not currently residing in those countries is completely irrelevant, they have the right to enter the uk from wherever they are.

      On the trade imbalance he used the “apples and bananas” trick to make it sound like a surplus in our favour by expressing it as percentages of the respective totals, when in fact it’s something like a £46 billion deficit for the uk.

      His case is based upon utter deceit, and he clearly thinks his supporters are to thick to see through it.

      Shame that Cameron and Miliband bottled out because they both agree with Nick and Mr Fruitcake would have exposed them all as fakes.

      • Lifelogic
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

        “His case is based upon utter deceit, and he clearly thinks his supporters are to thick to see through it.”

        Indeed it clearly is. Also many of his LibDem supporters clearly are, but surely, even he himself, cannot believe his statements are other than contrived sophistry?

    • stred
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:18 am | Permalink

      Also, Clegg was allowed to repeatedly totally avoid questions, such as one about student fees and loans. He was allowed to go on at length and interrupt, repeating his invalid points about jobs, extradition and potential numbers of Romanians and Bulgarians. I had the impression that he was allowed to talk for a longer period throughout the debate. Sometimes the host himself put points which should have been referred to Nigel. It would be interesting to analyse the timing and control. Not very professional. The question about Farage using his wife as his secretary was below the belt. How many MPs also employ their wives?

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 12:19 pm | Permalink

      “Three million jobs depend on EU membership” – surely no one but a complete idiot could believe that. Just their quack energy policy and equality policies destroy far more than that.

      I see Vince Cable on Woman’s hour thinks he knows how many woman should be on all the large company boards. I am sure in some magical, all seeing, god like way he knows all these businesses far, far better than the current directors and shareholders do.

      Does he really believe there is some huge, under priced asset of female labour floating about? If there were then companies would surely snap them up and simply wipe the floor with the competition? Or does he not believe in markets?

      Let the managers manage, let them take on the best regardless of gender, colour or anything else and let them fire the useless – just leave them alone you silly dope.

      Woman earn less because they make different choices in life, woman without children already earn rather more than men anyway I understand.

      • Mark B
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:01 pm | Permalink

        Actually, a lot of people do believe in the 3 million lie.

        Remember, not everyone reads EUReferendum and some are in a precarious position working for foreign car manufacturers who have gone on record as saying, they would reconsider their investment in the UK if were to leave the EU.

        This jobs lie, really does need to be put out of action. Farage had the opportunity, and missed.

        • lifelogic
          Posted March 28, 2014 at 4:13 pm | Permalink

          Indeed and they believe in buying lottery tickets, the sense of expensive greencrap energy, the global warming alarmists and the tooth fairy.

          But what can we do?

      • APL
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:47 pm | Permalink

        lifelogic: “Or does he not believe in markets? ”

        I am sure that was a rhetorical question. But I am going to answer it anyway; No.

    • Hope
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 12:57 pm | Permalink

      The fact remains Clegg cannot stop the free movement of people from the EU either in quality or quantity. When they work they can claim in work benefits straight away. Big corporations like it because the UK taxpayer is subsidising their workers wages!! The unions should be all over this because Miliband has made an issue of the standard of living crisis, cheap EU workers are making this happen. Cameron, Osborne and Clegg want this is help business. The brightest and best might come from the rest of the world where restraints are placed on them! As for the the threat to jobs, I think everyone saw through this line of specious crap. And Brillo has now made it clear the 7% of laws line from the HoC library is also a work of fiction by Clegg. EU arrest warrant means citizens of this country can be arrested and taken anywhere in the EU for offences that do not exist here. Extradition treaties have always existed this is not unique to the EU. That does not make me feel safe. You cannot believe a word he says. Cameron has become an irrelevance as the debate takes hold in the country.

      • uanime5
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:16 pm | Permalink

        When they work they can claim in work benefits straight away.

        So you’re complaining that taxpayers are getting benefits?

        Big corporations like it because the UK taxpayer is subsidising their workers wages!!

        Big companies demanded these subsidies because they complained that if they had to pay a living wage it would make the UK uncompetitive.

        And Brillo has now made it clear the 7% of laws line from the HoC library is also a work of fiction by Clegg.

        Actually Brillo stated that this claim was correct as 7% of statutory laws come from the EU. His complaint was that this figure didn’t include statutory instruments. Odd how he missed the part of this report that stated that out of all the statutory laws and statutory instruments only 9.1% come from the EU.

        Extradition treaties have always existed this is not unique to the EU.

        You mean like the one we have with the US that the US never ratified so they can ignore it. Not exactly a good comparison.

        • Mark B
          Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:48 am | Permalink

          U5 said;
          “Big companies demanded these subsidies because they complained that if they had to pay a living wage it would make the UK uncompetitive.”

          So you are OK with taxpayers funding some corporates, but not OK with Banking Corporates ? Me, I believe in market forces. If the business cannot make it on their own, let them go, banks etc.

          And.

          “You mean like the one we have with the US that the US never ratified so they can ignore it. Not exactly a good comparison”

          He did not mention the US. But as you did, lets remind ourselves of which Government / Political Party negotiated ans signed it shall we. Oh yes, that will be the Socialist Labour Party wouldn’t it.

      • stred
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:34 am | Permalink

        Many ex-communists are still running the justice systems in countries such as Romania, where justice is notoriously bent.

  6. Iain Gill
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 7:33 am | Permalink

    Sounds like Nigel would be a more appropriate leader of the party you should belong to than Dave

    • Duyfken
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:19 am | Permalink

      I doubt that JR would agree with you! Note that writing in measured terms, he has successfully failed to identify the person against whom Clegg was debating.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:05 am | Permalink

      I do not think people want a leader who so clearly & dishonestly says one thing, while believing (& behind the scenes doing) the complete opposite.

      If Cameron had debated with Farage then Cameron might have been asked what he had against a “Greater Switzerland” or Norway. What would he have said? There simply is no sensible repost or reply.

      • Hope
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:00 pm | Permalink

        Lifelogic, I suspect he would face similar untruths as he did from Clegg. Cameron has let Clegg do his dirty work because he does not have the courage to do it himself and it would expose him as a Europhile.

        Look at the comments of Hague recently, this is a man who used to claim to be ` Eurosceptic, it is pitiful to watch. Why don’t these people realise that the public will not trust them.

        One of the stark advantages Farrage has over Clegg is that the public believe Farage and do not trust a word Clegg says. The Westminster bubble needs to wake up to reality, the public have already made up their minds, they want out of the EU and Clegg said nothing to change it.

  7. M Davis
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 7:58 am | Permalink

    Good debate and I’m so glad Mr Farage had the winning vote from the public. Thank you for your input for the ‘EU out’ side, JR!

    • Mark B
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:06 pm | Permalink

      Clegg had nothing to lose. They will be lucky to get one seat in the Euro Elections, not that means anything.

      People can be trusted to return to their usual voting habits come the next election when, it will be about the economy. Remember the 2010 GE ? ALL three parties conspired NOT to talk about mass-immigration and the EU.

      When one voter dared to raise the issue with the usurper, Brown, she was labeled a bigot.

      Reply I talked about both issues, offered to vote for a referendum on the EU, and did so .

  8. alan jutson
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:25 am | Permalink

    Interesting to hear that Mr Clegg, and indeed according to him our Parliament, thinks only 7% of the rules and regulations which go through to become law, come from the EU.

    Did Nick Clegg have more air Time for his views than Farage, or did I just think that because I was so frustrated with the points Clegg was making.

    The usual 3 million Jobs lost, we have control of people coming in, our costs have gone down, no one to export to drivel.

    Does Clegg really think that if we leave the EU and pull up the drawbridge, the EU will be a completely no go area.
    The rest of the World is open if you have money or goods that people want, and trade is reciprocal if you have even basic common sense.

    Talk on the web about Clegg having gone through immense coaching from Government sources for this Party political debate, I have no idea if true or not, but it would seem to me vested interests could be at hand here.

    Good that the debate was held.

  9. Brian Tomkinson
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    JR: “Mr Clegg bombed badly in the debate last night.”
    Agreed, but you wouldn’t think so when you read or listen to many journalists and broadcasters. This shows just how determined the pro-EU camp is to keep the UK under EU control. What they fail to realise is that they are so intricately entwined with the Westminster bubble that they are blind to the fact that many people are sick to the back teeth of them and their political chums.
    Unsurprisingly, Clegg avoided answering directly most of the qustions preferring to answer his own questions whereas Farage as we have come to expect did address the points directly.

  10. Horatio McSherry
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:36 am | Permalink

    John, it was a nice surprise to see you there on the tv last night; I didn’t think it was something you’d particularly warm to. I was also surprised at the amount of big players – both political and media – who were there.

    I didn’t think Farage won it as convinsingly as most people seem to think but I also think Clegg came across very poorly by constantly interrupting and talking in an infuriatingly condescending manner (something I’m finding with the pro-EU members of the public when they’re interviewed).

    I think the big winner last night was the general public (a cliché I know) thanks to the Nick Ferrari who I thought was absolutely excellent and the fairest chair of a debate/interview there has been on any channel and any media for a very long time.

  11. Ex-expat Colin
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:42 am | Permalink

    All the London luvvies picking their noses over:

    Farage and beer (mild?)
    Farage and holding a pint of beer
    Farage a man from the pub
    Farage sweating
    Farage nervous
    Farage agitated

    Clegg and glasses of water
    Clegg the powerful DPM and similar BS

    They just don’t get it do they?

    Apart from having to goto the HoC library is there anywhere on the web where we can see the extent of controls placed on us by the unelected EU. It needs to be a handy reference to help at least those with some doubt about who (party) in UK is suitable to be representative (MEP) and who might ultimately be in power later. That would be another coalition again with the Tory’s I think.

    Not the Libs again…please!

  12. Alan Wheatley
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:46 am | Permalink

    The European Arrest Warrant is anathema to the British sense of justice. It does not even work, as a friend of mine knows to his cost: two people found guilty of theft in an English court and sentenced to prison are living openly and freely in Mainland Europe and have not returned the stolen goods as ordered to do so by the court, and the European Arrest Warrant, which one would have thought would have automatically swung into operation in a case of such blatant illegality, is nowhere to be seen.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:34 pm | Permalink

      The European Arrest Warrant is anathema to the British sense of justice.

      By that logic so are extradition treaties.

      Also the European Arrest Warrant can only be used to force someone in one EU country to go to another EU country to stand trial for a crime. It can’t be used to enforce court judgements.

      • Mark B
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:53 am | Permalink

        U5 said;
        “Also the European Arrest Warrant can only be used to force someone . . . ”

        That’s right. It can be used to FORCE someone to go somewhere and be locked up without charge. I hop you never have to face this U5, because then you will learn the value of Habeas Corpus, and why King John was forced to sign it.

      • Edward2
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:48 am | Permalink

        The big difference between the process of extradition and the dreadful EU arrest warrant Uni, is the element of a judge deciding in the UK if you have a case to answer.
        We have also given away this ancient right in the one sided treaty Blair signed with the USA
        It means that you and I can be arrested by our Police solely on the demands of any of the 28 EU nations police and be taken off to that country and be denied bail awaiting trial for months if not years without any judge in the UK checking the accusations and evidence against us is substantial enough.
        You talk on here about the benefits of the EU’s European human rights provisions yet this is an outrageous denial of a basic right of citizens of the UK.

  13. Nick
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:49 am | Permalink

    Nigel didn’t put the boot in.

    Clegg goes, we’ve made sure that people have to earn 150 a week for 3 months before they can claim welfare.

    That’s a total of 1.56 in NI and no income tax. Not per day or per week, or even per month. That’s £1.56 in total. So for less than 2p a day, they can get access to all the welfare they can claim.

    Next, the welfare cap. With more people claiming welfare, and a cap on welfare, that means cuts. Pull in lots of claimants, and that’s what is happening, and the poor get poorer.

    • alan jutson
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:35 pm | Permalink

      Nick

      Very good point about amount of tax and NI paid after 3 months work given the personal tax allowance

      I wonder if the politicians have worked this out yet.

      Complete National health service use and benefit entitlement is cheaper in this comparison than holiday insurance for a couple of weeks for us abroad

      • lifelogic
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 4:19 pm | Permalink

        Indeed any they can get schooling, child benefit, tax credits, council tax benefits, right to housing, heath care …… should be very popular with low earners with health problems, lots of children and elderly parents.

        I do not blame them, I blame the system Cameron has in place.

  14. colliemum
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:51 am | Permalink

    Interesting, isn’t it, that the Westminster MSM journalists see Clegg as winner, and write their columns accordingly.
    Also interesting is that the huge majority of commenters on those columns are disagreeing with the journalists.
    This divide between what the bien-pensants in the Westminster Village think, say and write and the normal people outside that bubble is remarkable because it’s the same divide in regard to what happened/is happening in the Ukraine right now.

    How is it possible that journalists, knowing full well that people have watched the EU debate, and knowing full well that people have access to more news sources than ever before, are still trying to ‘form’ opinions which patently runs counter to the experiences of those whose opinion they want to form?

  15. rick hamilton
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:58 am | Permalink

    Can’t these EUphiles understand that there are two dimensions to the EU, political and trade? We joined for the trade, not the politics and we could survive perfectly well with a free trade agreement without being a part of the EU Superstate project. Nobody has yet explained why British governments since 1973 have been apparently unable to read the words ‘ever closer union’ written into every treaty or why they signed up to it time and time again.

    If we invoked Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty next week as Farage would like, thereby giving notice to leave, the EU would be required by the treaty to negotiate the future relationship with the UK within two years. Since no country has done this yet there are no precedents and the strength of our final position would depend entirely upon the negotiating skills of our politicians. Which is presumably why none of the major parties has the nerve to suggest it.

    • uanime5
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:37 pm | Permalink

      We joined for the trade, not the politics and we could survive perfectly well with a free trade agreement without being a part of the EU Superstate project.

      Given that no other country has complete access to the single market without having to obey almost all EU law it’s unlikely that the UK will be given special treatment.

      • Mark B
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:56 am | Permalink

        Similarly, it is unlikely that Germany and the rest of the EU will be given special trading arrangements post Brexit.

        Personally, I think the German’s and others have a far more realistic approach to these matters and will happily agree trading arrangements. A UK that is a member of both the EFTA and the EEA / Single Market would suit everyone. Well, almost everyone, eh U5 ?

      • matthu
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:06 am | Permalink

        And you think that is a right and justifiable position?

        That an external, independent country wishing to have bi-lateral free trade with the single market, or as free as it might want to enjoy with the rest of the developed world, needs to obey almost all EU law?

  16. formula57
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:00 am | Permalink

    Our Deputy Prime Minister’s appeal to “let us have the facts” was fair enough but then why undermine it by his tendentious revelations like those about 3 million jobs and no extradition without European arrest warrants (ignoring Farage’s key point about lack of habeas corpus)? Throughout Clegg seemed to be trying to refute Farage’s views with the supposition that withdrawal from the EU would mean no further interaction whatsoever of any kind with our then ex-partners. Why does he think we will find any of that persuasive?

  17. margaret brandreth-j
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:10 am | Permalink

    Clegg made some valid ponts about Seimens and he believes that many jobs would be lost with withdrawal from the EU. Farage and yourself say not. As it is speculation I don’t know who to believe.
    Farage made the points clear and came over well, but Clegg did not lose the debate There is no final score. Farage used facts as we have them so far , but we do not have future facts.
    On gay marriage Farage said that he would stand with religious bodies and the EU on this until the law changes then he would rethink , which is fair enough and demonstrates he respects authority , whilst Nick expressed his own views.

    If this helps us regain some of the powers and trade freely , Fargae did well.

    • forthurst
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 5:50 pm | Permalink

      “Clegg made some valid ponts about Seimens and he believes that many jobs would be lost with withdrawal from the EU. Farage and yourself say not.”

      If Siemens’ factory in Hull went – good riddance. The Siemens factory would build offshore wind turbines which generate even more costly energy than onshore turbines and, in the process, help close down productive industry throughout the UK that uses significant amounts of energy. By getting out of the EU, Hull would once again become a major fishing port employing far more people than Siemens would.

      Another at risk inward investment would be Hitachi’s to make the UK the world centre for building HS2 trains at a cost to the taxpayer of £70 billion and rising.

      The ‘final score’ is in the mind of the beholder; whether he can see through Clegg’s sophistry or not.

      • Keith
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:12 pm | Permalink

        Siemens withdrew from North Tyneside only 1 yr after opening due to pressure from Far East, nothing to do with Europe.

      • uanime5
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:39 pm | Permalink

        By getting out of the EU, Hull would once again become a major fishing port employing far more people than Siemens would.

        Unless leaving the EU will result in higher spawning levels from the fish the fishing quotas will have to remain.

        • Mark B
          Posted March 28, 2014 at 7:58 am | Permalink

          Yes there will always will be a need for a fishing quota but, it will be under the control of the UK Government and its people and not some faceless Eurocrate.

    • APL
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:54 pm | Permalink

      margaret brandreth-j: “On gay marriage Farage said that he would stand with religious bodies and the EU on this until the law changes then he would rethink”

      The whole ‘gay marriage’ issue is (nonsense). Stupid people arguing that the state should sanction their relationships.

      We should be deregulating marriage not ‘nationalising’ it.

      It should be none of the States business who a person chooses to live his or her life with. All we need is a register of marriage and subsequent divorce.

  18. David Hope
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:12 am | Permalink

    I enjoyed the debate, thought it was a bit more natural than the pre general election ones.

    Thought it was playing a bit dirty to be asking Farage so much about employing his wife (with the implication he was in some scandal) and about gay marriage – surely just designed to damage the anti EU case by association.

    Clegg was awful early on in his usual cliche hell – who knows how many times he talked about pulling up the drawbridge. I agree he did best talking about the arrest warrant, maybe Farage should have emphasised more the fact extradition treaties could do the same with far more protections for Brits – although he wasn’t given much chance by Ferrari here with Clegg interrupting him. Funny that a ‘liberal’ thinks that civil liberties should be sacrificed for slightly faster extradition.

    Also, I noticed that on the question about banking Farage (although he gave a strong answer) never mentioned Switzerland, Hong Kong, Singapore. This really should be emphasised – it shows Cleggy’s insistence that we have to be part of a giant block to be nonsense. It’s also worth noting that they are all pretty safe without the Euro Arrest Warrant. Compare homicide rates for HK with London for example

    I think the most telling point was when Clegg said he “wouldn’t risk sacrificing a single job”. What a corporatist! Lets not worry about freedom or democracy, these things are totally unimportant compared to a risk to one job or whether they might irritate a big company.

  19. matthu
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:17 am | Permalink

    After the debate, Bill Cash reflected to The Huffington Post that Nigel Farage was getting a [disproportionate] amount of air time given that he can’t change anything – completely overlooking the point that Nigel is changing things: he is changing people’s opinions by bringing the debate to the people, something other politcal parties and mainstream media have too long tried to avoid.

    Nigel Farage’s throw away comment about the EU having “blood on their hands” over how events have turned out in the Ukraine is interesting, particularly if it opens up debate on the EU’s involvement in the Ukraine.

    Of course, Bill Cash has previously raised this same issue (and I quote here from http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2014/03/bill-cash-mp-the-eu-bears-a-big-slice-of-responsibility-for-the-crisis-in-ukraine.html)

    I have been gravely concerned about the dismal failure by the EU over the last several years properly to take into account the sensibilities of Russia in relation to the Crimea and the Ukraine in their relentless pursuit of the Eastern Partnership and the Association Agreement – as I said in the Commons last week,

    As I indicated in my question to the Foreign Secretary last Monday, we must recognise that the EU’s ambitions for the Eastern Partnership and the Association Agreement over the past 18 months have borne some responsibility for the relationship between Russia and Ukraine. This was something of an understatement.

    Seeking to drive the Russian bear into the back of a cave and then prodding it with spears is bound to have dreadful results. Sadly, travel bans and asset freezes and even economic sanctions will not address the underlying problem. It seems clear that Crimea will revert to Russia.

    The present situation, on all sides, is by no means acceptable or satisfactory, but the EU must recognise that it bears a disproportionate degree of responsibility for the crisis which could have been avoided … EU leaders had promised President Putin to overcome “different interpretations and misunderstandings” over this agreement. The EU has told them one thing – and done another.

    Clegg and Farage’s spat about whether 70% or 7% of legislation emanates from (or is related to?) the EU needs to be exposed. I suspect that Clegg’s interpretation is based more on weasel words – like the “small print” he alluded to in his poster clamouring for a referendum.

    Meanwhile the FT reports that the government is actually considering awarding visas for only 11 months and 29 days instead of 12 months at a time: apparently this will reduce net immigration figures by 19,000. Weasel actions certainly speak louder than words.

  20. Bert Young
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:37 am | Permalink

    The debate was chaired very badly ; Nick Clegg overran his time slot on several occasions . The one question put to Nigel Farage from the Chairman was unfairly barbed about Farage employing his wife ; it should have been followed by Clegg being questioned about his wife being employed – at vast expense , by an organisation tied up with EU green policy. The interesting thing for me was in the YouGov follow up poll showing how Labour and LibDem voters had responded ; from this I deduce that defections in these parties will definitely favour UKIP in the May elections . The TV performance of both the individuals ? , well , Farage has to polish up and drop some of his natural arrogance ; Clegg’s experience in front of the cameras was an advantage , but , he showed his “shiftiness” and poor depth in argument . Did either of them win ? – no ! . Was it good entertainment ? – yes ! . Overall the debate has shown how keen the public are to become involved and get to an ” In / Out ” referendum sooner rather than later .

  21. Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:04 am | Permalink

    At least the debate seemed to be conducted reasonably fairly. However, the (Biased) BBC interviewed Paddy Ashdown and Lord Pearson this morning and allowed Ashdown to continue make the same old claims for the EU, but cut Lord Pearson off sharply when he tried to mention the Migration Watch report. So much for impartial reporting and I suspect the Clegg-Farrage debate on the BBC will be conducted with much the same kind of “impartiality”.

  22. The Prangwizard
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:10 am | Permalink

    Although this has been covered by others perfectly well, I wish to add my view that the attempt by the BBC to claim that it was ‘about even’ is a piece of careful and deliberate misinformation and distortion. They have no shame.
    Just when are we going to see some radical and lasting change there – it taking too long. It needs to be radical for, as I have said before, like a worm, if only a little is cut from it, new growth will replace exactly what has been lost.

  23. ian wragg
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:18 am | Permalink

    I was particularly incensed at Cloggs repeated …..if we pull up the drawbridge…. That is precisely what we must do.
    He maintains that only 7% of legislation is from EU sources but fails to mention that 80% of topics are EU competences so the laws are enacted to follow EU policy.
    As for his stupidity on trade, (I think there are 140 plus countries not in the EU but who trade with them) it is beyond belief that even he believes trade will come to a crashing halt. If you have a product people want, they will buy it.
    I think the punch line was Nigel reminding him of the same arguments if we didn’t join the Euro.

  24. Gary
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:19 am | Permalink

    You keep talking about EU trade with us not being damaged. Of course it won’t. It is no skin off the EU nose to keep trading with us or anyone else ..They already trade with the entire world.

    The point us that the rest if the world’s trade with us may be damaged, if they now have to duplicate their entry paperwork and pay separate tariffs and duties to trade with a relatively small country than the EU.

  25. miami.mode
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:27 am | Permalink

    Two points regarding Mr Clegg are that he and the LibDems now say that 3 million jobs are ‘linked’ to the EU rather than at risk and when Mr Farage quite rightly suggested that all of the EU could come here if they wanted to, Mr Clegg subtly changed it by saying that the benefits regime was changing which would deter migration. Mr Clegg seems as slippery as an eel.

    What I do find a bit disturbing is that over the past 100 years or so virtually all of the English speaking nations plus India and parts of Africa have fought alongside us during many conflicts including World Wars 1 & 2 and ensured our freedom and yet we are now aparently unable to do trade deals with them. Loyalty consigned to the dustbin.

  26. Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:30 am | Permalink

    It was great to see a tv debate that was not dominated by the host broadcaster. We actually heard the arguments from the 2 politicians with a minimum of interference.

    I somehow doubt the BBC will be able achieve this standard.

  27. Narrow shoulders
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:55 am | Permalink

    I listened on the radio and Mr Clegg was trounced, all he could do was defend there was no attack. Scaremongering and misinformation to obfiscate.It seems many watching on TV found Mr Farage’s sweating and bobbing about offputting so the score was closer. I doubt either man managed to convince died in the wool supporters away from their positions but at least the debate is open.

    Labour’s response that the public has bigger worries needs to be addressed hesd on though. The EU has influence on most of the big issues, cost of living due to too many people consuming scarce resources and accommodation, high taxes to pay for bureaucrats and quangos, foreign criminal gangs and youth unemployment.

  28. yulwaymartyn
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:57 am | Permalink

    Vote Nigel. Get Vladmir.

    Nice one.

    • waramess
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:13 pm | Permalink

      I suppose replying to this sort of bollocks is something the average person would resist but as a non UKIP voter I am offended by the nonsense of attributing something that did not happen.

      Farage said quite clearly that the EU had blood on it’s hands by inciting the Ukranians to overthrow a legitimate and democratically elected government.

      EU expansion is a worry and only the mindless will fail to question the motive

      • yulwaymartyn
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:44 pm | Permalink

        Waramess: Only if you think EU expansion is a worry. I have no problem with it. I am a europhile after all.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:34 pm | Permalink

      I’d say it would be more like:

      “Vote Nigel, and don’t have the EU fomenting revolutions in your name”.

      Here’s a bit of advice for would-be revolutionaries in this modern age: don’t have a website on which you say that you have taken power “according to Article 112 of the Constitution” while also conveniently providing the text of that Constitution so that anyone check and discover that you have not, you have seized power in flagrant breach of that Constitution and so in legal terms you are not an “interim” or “acting” government, you are a bunch of revolutionaries.

      http://www.president.gov.ua/en/

      I wonder whether Obama would be so sanguine about the illegal character of the Kiev government if one day the House of Representatives decided to replace him with their Speaker in defiance of the US Constitution.

      • yulwaymartyn
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:50 am | Permalink

        I am all for revolutions Denis. Bring them on.

        Revolution 1: Get rid of unelected House of Lords.

        Revolution 2: Get rid of the unelected and secretive Privvy Council.

        Revolution 3: Get rid of the unelected monarch.

        Revolution 4: Referendum on our membership of NATO

        Revolution 5: Referendum on our membership of the EU

        With reference to Obama – they have impeachment. We do not. The founding fathers thought about that a long time ago.

        More revolutions please. They can’t come soon enough for me.

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 28, 2014 at 5:36 pm | Permalink

          Well, the revolutionaries have now removed the Constitution from the website of the “acting” president, so I can no longer direct you to the note at the top about previous alleged amendments which were not made by the procedure laid down in the Constitution and were later overturned by the Constitutional Court … there is a history of the politicians in the Ukrainian Parliament acting unconstitutionally, and that is what has happened again.

          But it can still be found here, for the moment:

          http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ukraine,_2010

          As you can read for yourself, Article 111 of the Constitution of Ukraine does provides a procedure for the impeachment of the directly elected President, involving both the Constitutional Court and the Supreme Court, but no attempt was made to follow that procedure; and even if had been, under Article 112 the interim president would have been the Prime Minister not the Chairman of the Parliament; so the February 23rd resolution of the Parliament which appears over the name of its Chairman and purports to confer the presidential powers on that same person is obviously not “according to Article 112 of the Constitution”.

          If we had a revolution here I doubt that you would like it.

        • Mark B
          Posted March 30, 2014 at 5:18 am | Permalink

          Actually, impeachment is something that the US got from us. We tried it on with Blair, but got nowhere. Sadly.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

          Items 1, 2 and 3

          And what do you propose to replace them with ?

          Items 4 and 5.

          Referendums are NOT legally binding. Even if all those that are eligible to vote, voted to leave the EU and NATO, our Government can simply ignore us, and there is nothing we can do about it. Does that sound like democracy to you ?

          I thought you were a Europhile because you had business interests on the continent and just wanted to look after #1 , which is understandable. But now I am beginning tor think it much more than that, although I think, like most Europhiles, you have not thought things through.

          Reply Referendums are what Parliament decides they will be , so they could be binding.

    • Mark B
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:45 pm | Permalink

      I am not a UKIP voter either, and I find that comment offensive given the fact that Farage, despite his many faults, has never, to my knowledge, threatened or harmed anyone.

      From your comment Posted March 25, 2014 at 10:27 am

      “Bert Young. I agree wholly. Some of these responses are just rants. I think this blog is becoming a form of therapy for some contributors. One reply per day would be fine.”

      Well, you have had your one comment / rant and, I think you really rather wasted it. Hope the therepy proves more successful.

      • yulwaymartyn
        Posted March 28, 2014 at 10:21 am | Permalink

        Fair enough.

  29. Tad Davison
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 11:50 am | Permalink

    If I watch a football match on the telly, I usually disregard what the so-called experts are saying and make my own mind up as to what is really going on. Last night’s debate on our membership of the EU was no different. I listened to the arguments, and on balance I thought Clegg got thrashed, and deservedly so. He was totally unconvincing, but I don’t need the BBC or any other leftie to try to persuade me otherwise with spin and weasel words.

    The BBC does indeed need to watch its step because ever more people are finally beginning to see through it, and it just cannot be right that an organisation which is supposed to be totally impartial, has such an in-built and erroneous political slant. Further, that people are compelled to pay for it like it or not. I continue to make the case that the situation with the BBC, is little different to that which existed in Soviet Russia. At least with a station like RT, one doesn’t have to pay for it on pain of imprisonment if they choose not to. And besides, most of RT’s output can be corroborated by other sources, and that cannot be said of dear old Aunty.

    As the case for the UK’s withdrawal from the EU has been clearly made on this and many other previous occasions, what is wrong with the bulk of mainstream politicians, who still want to oversee the further erosion of the UK’s powers, and who would seek to prevent their repatriation?

    Two plus two makes four, that is patently obvious, as is the need to remove the millstone around our necks that is the EU. So for a section of the political class to persist with further matriculation, would point to an undeclared vested interest in order to force us to accept something that clearly doesn’t make sense. And that is very odd. Looking at the Ukraine, I thought a nation’s right to self-determination was right at the top of the EU’s agenda, or could we be looking at yet another case of EU double-standards?

    I think supporters of the EU either need to take the blinkers off, or leave the funny fags alone!

    Tad Davison

    Cambridge

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:44 pm | Permalink

      indeed.

  30. Cliff. Wokingham.
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 11:55 am | Permalink

    Clegg did, in my opinion make a bit of a fool of himself last night; I wonder if he comments on here under the Uanime5 handle:-)

    This morning, Mr Clegg used his permanent “Party Political Broadcast” show to say he was “shocked” by Mr Farage’s comments about the EU and it’s role in the current Crimea crisis……Message to Mr Clegg; if you are so easily shocked by someone expressing a view different to yours, are you sure you are in the right profession? For what it’s worth, I agree with Mr Farage on this one and having spoken to my friends and family about it, so are most of them, mind you, we are not wedded to, nor funded by, the EU and nor are we living in the Westminster bubble, so perhaps you need to get out more Mr Clegg and meet ordinary people, living ordinary lives or don’t you really care one jot what the ordinary people think?

  31. bigneil
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 12:00 pm | Permalink

    Thank you for an article that is absolutely honest with no trickery of words. If all MPs would be so open instead of treating us like idiots until “election time -put the smiley face on”. On radio Derby this morning they had a libdem MEP phone in and try to stand up for Mr Clegg by saying ” Libdems have 8% of the vote”. Rather odd that he didn’t mention what Ukip’s share was. It was also noticeable when Mr Farage said the amount of about 480 million have the right to come here, Mr Cleggs answer was ” not all of them”. How on earth is that an answer??? How could this country cope if even a quarter of them came, which, they are entitled to do due to somebody signing up !! and claim what they are – laughingly said -”entitled to”. That would certainly blow IDS’s benefit cap plans apart.

  32. Lindsay McDougall
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 12:01 pm | Permalink

    There are two points that I would like clarified:
    (1) Precisely what is 75% of determined in Brussels? Is it laws, tax rate or practical decision?
    (2) To what extent do the interests of an island nation AUTOMATICALLY diverge from those of continental Member States?

  33. lojolondon
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 12:07 pm | Permalink

    Hi John,

    Not sure if you have seen this – YouGov states that the announced results of the poll were adjusted in favour of Clegg – see below :

    http://yougov.co.uk/news/2014/03/27/farage-wins-debate-clegg/

    “I estimate that the verdict of the audience would have been Farage 65%, Clegg 28%. Those who prefer to cite this figure, rather than to adjust for the UKIP-rich nature of the audience, are of course free to do so.”

  34. acorn
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Can I take it that someone in the current government has remembered what Open Europe said in 2012.

    “Secure a ‘free trade’ EU Commissioner. One of the most significant recent UK failures in the EU was the failure to gain an economic portfolio in the current Commission. The deal reached in 2009, in which the UK gained the EU Foreign Minister and France’s Michel Barnier was appointed Internal Market and Financial Services Commissioner, was a major strategic mistake, with the UK now often fighting rearguard battles on financial services regulation designed by officials who either do not understand or are hostile to financial services.

    When the next Commission is appointed in 2014 the UK should use all its influence to gain the Internal Market or Trade portfolios, or at least ensure they go to representatives of economically liberal states such as Sweden, the Netherlands, Ireland or the Czech Republic.”

    The UK will have to stop huffing and puffing, for home voter consumption, else renegotiation won’t be going anywhere in this decade. Getting out of the EU is full of traps, particularly with both tariff and non-tariff barriers that will hit us on the outside. Read Box A (page 17) in the following; http://www.openeurope.org.uk/Content/Documents/2012EUTrade_new.pdf .

    • Mark B
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

      The Commissioner takes a sworn oath to serve the interests of the EU, and only the EU and NOT the interests of their country of birth. Or, as they say; “the country I know best.”

      This type of clap-trap is served by the Europlastic Open Europe to give the impression that we are sending one of ‘our’ people. We are not, and Open Europe are (selling us down the river? ).

  35. a-tracy
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 12:24 pm | Permalink

    I didn’t watch it, I just saw a couple of snippets about Farrage’s wife on Newsnight. Farage is always put at a disadvantage in the press, The Telegraph showed him sweaty on all the pre-program photos with a cool photo of Clegg. If I were Farage’s wife I’d be insisting all of these accusers gave ME a right to reply and show that I worked hard for my wages. I hate this allegation when a couple work together, I contribute equally to my husband in our business he doesn’t carry me, he can trust me to quietly and reliably get on with the job.

  36. Freeborn John
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 12:27 pm | Permalink

    I was surprised that Clegg claimed there are not 29 million people in Bulgaria and Romania. Stats show 7.305 million in Bulgaria + 21.33 million in Romania adding up to 28.635 which is 29 million to nearest million.

    Note I am favour of immigration but Clegg was wrong to challenge easily looked population figures.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 5:32 pm | Permalink

      He was copying the loudmouth Tory MP Anna Soubrey who originally came out with that lie about there not being 29 million Romanians and Bulgarians.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:48 pm | Permalink

      Indeed the they do not need to be living there now to have to rights to come to the EU anyway. The attack on the perfectly true statement was pathetic and childish – just as one would expect of the Libdems.

  37. BobE
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 1:04 pm | Permalink

    Why is Clegg complaining about Farage pointing out that the EU promises to the West Ukrane added to or even started the unrest there? Its so obviously true that he must be blind not to see it. Or is he trying to generate another myth.
    Bob

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:49 pm | Permalink

      Yes he is.

  38. Peter Davies
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 1:30 pm | Permalink

    Is someone looking at the “7% of laws” that poor Mr Clegg claims that come from the EU? I’m sure someone with access to the Commons Library to find that answer – Vivien Redding claimed it was 70%

    Also as you say the “3 million jobs” nonsense really needs exposing properly – who wrote that report and why?

    I’m not sure if its me but this debate is really starting to get irritating. We are hearing the same recycled arguments over and over again about the same thing – is this for the benefit of the public who have not taken much notice?

    • Mark B
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:05 pm | Permalink

      Dr. Richard North at EUReferendum has an article on the laws.

      We will continue to hear the same tired arguments over and over again. They only way to stop them is to successfully counter them and put up alternative ideas, policies and arguments. Something that is in short supply over at UKIP, I believe.

  39. Tom William
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 2:00 pm | Permalink

    It was absurd for the chattering classes to think/claim that Clegg had won the debate. he failed to answer several questions and repeated ad nauseam his determination to protect living standards from the consequences of leaving the EU etc.. Farage had some good shots, which took Clegg by surprise (eg revealing that Ford had moved their Southampton factory to Turkey with the help of EU money).

    The argument about the %age of British laws made by the EU was obviously one of definition, for example Statutory Instruments imposing EU regulations were clearly ignored by Clegg. But Farage could have answered that Cameron had said that “about 50%” of laws originated in Brussels. By not having facts at his finger tips Farage was totally caught out.

    Clegg should have been told more than once to be quiet and not try to drown out what Farage was saying. For the media to suggest Clegg was calm and Farage aggressive and sweating is ridiculous.

    Much of the media (and some politicians) like to refer to the appeal of Farage and UKIP as populist. Populism just seems to me to be a snooty way of describing popular views with which all right thinking people disagree. I suppose that was how the Labour movement/party was originally described.

  40. Behindthefrogs
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 2:11 pm | Permalink

    We would have much more influence in Europe if the UKIP MEPS actually took part in the debates and votes. We cannot afford to have MEPs who fail to represent the UK bit instead just regard their election as a successful protest vote. We cannot afford to throw away the little influence that we do have.

    • ian wragg
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

      UKIP do take part in debates but the voting is a sham. The MEP’s have no influence whatsoever on legislation proposed by the Soviet style unelected commission.
      Votes are usually held in bulk when there is no chance to wield any influence.

      • uanime5
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:55 pm | Permalink

        The MEP’s have no influence whatsoever on legislation proposed by the Soviet style unelected commission.

        You forgot that MEPs are able to amend and reject this legislation.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 5:42 pm | Permalink

      Sure, it would make all the difference if only UKIP’s dozen or so MEPs out of the total of 766 MEPs would do the decent thing and commit themselves to making the EU work properly, rather than getting themselves elected to hasten the day when we finally give up on the EU as a bad job …

  41. matthu
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 2:26 pm | Permalink

    “Mr Clegg bombed badly in the debate last night. He majored on the lie that 3 million jobs would be at risk if we left the EU, an argument often debunked on this website. Let’s hope after another airing of the main reasons why this is untrue we can put that canard to bed once and for all.”

    Mr Clegg is a bright chap, so I find it difficult to believe that this lie has never been pointed out to him before. He is obviously relying on the old adage “If you repeat a lie often enough … ” (or is it “Make the lie big, make it simple, keep saying it, and eventually they will believe it”?)

    For the same reason, Mr Clegg disputes the 29 million who have the right to move to the UK as being more than “the number of people living in Romania and Bulgaria”. Weasel words which ignore Romanians and Bulgarians who have already migrated elsewhere in Europe.

    And Mr Clegg’s claim of only 7% of legislation emanating from the EU clearly ignores any secondary legislation, statutory instruments and the like. More weasel words.

    • Denis Cooper
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:11 pm | Permalink

      His 7% ignores almost all of the most numerous form of EU laws, Regulations, which are automatically law in this country without the need for Parliament to do anything at all, not even to nod through secondary legislation.

      And I have no doubt Clegg knows that, because when he referred to a study by the House of Commons Library that was an old report which did exactly the same thing, but which has since been superseded by a new report attempting to count in the Regulations as well.

      That new report may be read here:

      http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62/how-much-legislation-comes-from-europe

      As it states on page 16:

      “On 25 June 2009 Lord Stoddart asked why the Government had not mentioned in their answers that EU regulations had direct effect, and whether they would “reconsider their decision not to undertake research into the proportion of United Kingdom legislation originating in the European Union”.

      The Government replied that it had always been clear that EU regulations were directly applicable in the UK. However, it has not always been made clear that the 9% frequently cited in parliamentary answers refers only to SIs laid under the ECA and does not include SIs laid under other Acts or the overwhelming majority of EU regulations.”

      From the table on page 24 of that later report it would appear that on average over recent years about 47% of our new laws are determined by the EU.

      Nevertheless I doubt that they’ve captured the full impact of ECJ case law, and it should also be recognised that even where the EU does not have “control” over our laws it can still have considerable “influence”.

      As for Viviane Reding’s statement that 70% of our new laws now come from the EU, I doubt that it is that high and indeed she has tried to row back from that.

      On the other hand if a high and mighty Vice-President of the EU Commission shoots her mouth off and publicly claims that it’s 70%, as she certainly did, then there is no strong moral compulsion on anybody else to make allowances for her and help her out of the hole she dug for herself by agreeing that it’s not really as high as 70% and she had just expressed herself badly; provided that they stick with saying “Viviane Reding publicly claimed that it was 70%” then they are not departing from the strict truth in the same way that Clegg was guilty of a major departure from the truth with his 7% claim.

      • forthurst
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 8:07 pm | Permalink

        The percentage of UK law formulated in Brussels is a red herring. The material issue is the effects of those EU laws, on which we do not have an optout, which are materially damaging to our prosperity, our wellbeing, our existance as an independent state under the rule of our law, our very continuance as a people with the characteristics which has given so much to the world in every sphere of human activity.

        • Edward2
          Posted March 28, 2014 at 9:52 am | Permalink

          I agree entirely forthurst.
          Which is why they want to keep arguing about percentages.

      • uanime5
        Posted March 27, 2014 at 11:07 pm | Permalink

        Funny how you omitted this paragraph:

        All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between 15% and 50% or thereabouts. To exclude EU regulations from the calculation is likely to be an under-estimation of the proportion of EU-based national laws (see table on page 20), while to include all EU regulations in the calculation is probably an over-estimation (see table above). The answer in numerical terms lies somewhere in between the two approaches. The limitations of data also make it impossible to achieve an accurate measure. We do not know, for example, how many regulations have direct application in the UK – olive and tobacco growing regulations are unlikely to have much impact here, but the UK implements such regulations along with olive and tobacco-growing Member States.

        So your 47% claim cannot be considered accurate because you don’t know how many of these regulations affected the UK.

        • matthu
          Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:07 am | Permalink

          But way north of 7%

        • Denis Cooper
          Posted March 28, 2014 at 6:03 pm | Permalink

          I wonder if you understand the difference between quantitative and qualitative analysis.

          A question such as:

          “What fraction of our new laws are determined by the EU?”

          or, as in the title of that report:

          “How much legislation comes from Europe?”

          requires a quantitative answer; and having previously produced a report in which he hadn’t counted in “the overwhelming majority of EU regulations” the same author then produced this second report in which he made an attempt to count them all in; and his best answer is in that table on page 24, that on average 47% of all our new laws are determined by the EU.

          These are all new laws which apply to the UK, and it doesn’t matter if some of them rarely or even never have any practical effects in this country, just as there are some purely homegrown laws which as it turns out rarely or even never have any practical effects in this country, and once those homegrown laws are recognised as being redundant they will eventually be repealed.

          So I don’t think the author is justified in trying to shift back from his new conclusion towards his previous conclusion by saying that maybe some of the EU Regulations should not be included in a quantitative analysis; they are all laws which apply within the UK, in fact automatically apply within the UK without the need for Parliament to lift a finger, and they should counted as such.

          If you want to go on from a simple count of laws to looking at their impact then that is fair enough, and that has also been done, but it is not correct to introduce qualitative arguments to confound the quantitative analysis.

  42. Atlas
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 3:50 pm | Permalink

    “Home Rule from the EU” – is what I say. With this we re-visit the 1880s but this time it is we who are on the receiving end of the Big Staters.

  43. BobE
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 3:59 pm | Permalink

    I always hoped that UKIP would light a fire under this issue. It is the most important issue and it effects everything else. It needs to be resolved and not just pushed aside as the mainstream parties are doing.
    Bob

  44. Sean O'Hare
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 4:09 pm | Permalink

    Congratulations JR on an article about the leaders debate on the EU which you managed without once mentioning Nigel Farage or UKIP. How you do that is amazing!

    • matthu
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 5:26 pm | Permalink

      Don’t worry – if you do a Google search for Redwood Farage you still get over nearly 4 million hits, if you do the same for Redwood Clegg you get fewer than 200,000.

  45. robin
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 5:19 pm | Permalink

    You and I know that many of Nick Clegg’s statements are not correct. But I wager that a majority of listeners/viewers do not. And there you have a problem with politics and media today. Likewise, given the history of Crimea and the EU’s recent conduct, I believe Nigel Farage was pretty much right on the ball in what he said about the Ukraine.

    The result of the next debate between these two is no doubt already known to the BBC! Forget not that the BBC receives money from the EU, fabricates results on Blue Peter and will not publish the Balen report.

    Now I would like to see you. John, debating the EU with Nick. It would be informative and entertaining seeing you trounce the great pretender.

    Reply I would happily do that, but I do not think Mr C is up for it.

    • yulwaymartyn
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:48 pm | Permalink

      Robin: No the real debate would be between David Cameron and John Redwood. Now that would be something.

      Would you do that JR?

    • Brian Tomkinson
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 7:58 pm | Permalink

      Reply to reply,
      Why don’t you publicly challenge him and force him to publicly refuse? For good measure you could add that you want this debate because you are affronted by the lies and half-truths he is promulgating to the British people concerning the EU.

    • Chris S
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:48 pm | Permalink

      Nigel has made a good job on Clegg, no need for you to pile on the misery.

      Instead I believe you could try for a public debate with Cable on the limited topic of the real position over trade and jobs, as it is now, and if we were to leave.

      I guess he won’t play ball because he knows everything the Europhiles say on the subject consist of lies and dodgy statistics.

  46. Paul
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 5:41 pm | Permalink

    The real facts about our dreadful membership of the EU and the pro EU scaremongering were exposed clearly by Farage last night. There was only ever going to be one winner. Clegg might be able to wipe the floor with Cameron and Brown, but when he faces someone who knows what they’re talking about he struggles a bit. Good to see JR praising Mr Farage last night for a change instead of insulting him and the rest of UKIP. Eurosceptics are stronger and more likely to succeed when they unite. When Labour inevitably form the next government in 2015 with or without the Lib Dems, and the Conservatives finally get rid of Cameron, advocate withdrawal from the EU and form a closer relationship with UKIP, the centre-right could become as strong and relevant as it was 20/30 years ago.

    Reply I have never insulted or disparaged Mr Farage. All I have ever done is point out the arithmetic, as we need majorities to sort out our relationship with the EU, not minorities based on splitting the vote. For my efforts I am often attacked by UKIP supporters who clearly do not want my help in a common cause.

    • Lifelogic
      Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:00 pm | Permalink

      Even a majority under Cameron (which will not happen anyway) would achieve nothing. Cameron is just genetically a heart and soul, pro EU, 299+ tax increases ratter. I would prefer the dreadful, state sector union man Miliband.

      At least Miliband admits to being a fake green, pro EU, big state socialist and he has half decent science and maths A levels achieved at a state school.

  47. waramess
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 6:25 pm | Permalink

    This was not a matter of Farage winning against Clegg, this was about something far more important. In case the political classes and the press missed the point, it was about losing the argument for staying in Europe.

    I don’t believe the public would be voting for the finer points of the debate, more likely for the broader points of the argument and Farage, on behalf of the British people, has struck the first blow.

    Next Wednesday will be even more important as the British people, who might be interested in the subject, give a further verdict.

    My suggestion to the press and the political classes would be to take greater care and thought on how they respond to the results of next Wednesdays debate

  48. matthu
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:04 pm | Permalink

    Roger helmer on his blog:

    Outside the EU we’ll be isolated and marginalised. We’ll have no influence in the world. … We get an 8% say in EU law-making, but in exchange we’ve given Brussels a 75% say in our own affairs. Sounds like a loss of influence to me….

    Of course a big group of countries like the EU has more clout than a single member-state – doesn’t it? …

    (Or) consider Canada, currently #11 by GDP, just a fraction smaller than California, and about three quarters the size of the UK economy. Canada is an independent a sovereign nation, smaller than UK. But it’s in the G8. Anyone think it lacks clout because it’s not in the EU? Or that it would have more clout if it were? No. I thought not.

    When we leave the EU, we will be in the top ten countries by GDP. We will be the EU’s largest external customer in the world – bar none. We will be a great global trading nation. We will still be on the UN Security Council, on the OECD, the World Bank, the WTO, in NATO, a leading country in the Commonwealth (whose GDP now exceeds the Eurozone), and on dozens of international organisations, too many to list. We shall be a major voice in the councils of nations – and our own voice, not Brussels’ voice. We shall be not so much leaving the EU, as re-joining the real world, where growth and opportunity are to be found.

    Brilliant.

  49. Iain Gill
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 9:17 pm | Permalink

    You know I’d just like to thank you John for running this site, being so open, being so tolerant, and so much more.
    This probably sounds bland, but I really mean it from the bottom of my heart.
    Best Wishes

    Reply Thanks

  50. Edward2
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 10:36 pm | Permalink

    In all the debate little time was given to what is the fundamental point for many like me.
    Do you want to be governed and ruled by the United States of Europe, or for better or for worse do you want to be governed by an elected Parliament in London.

  51. uanime5
    Posted March 27, 2014 at 11:11 pm | Permalink

    He majored on the lie that 3 million jobs would be at risk if we left the EU, an argument often debunked on this website.

    1) If the UK leaves the EU it’s highly likely that millions of jobs will be lost due to the tariffs that will be put on goods from the UK and because the UK will no longer have access to the EU’s financial markets. This claim hasn’t been debunked on this website as the belief that the EU won’t put tariffs on the UK, despite putting these same tariffs on the USA and China, has not been substantiated with any evidence.

    2) Unless Farage was able to use evidence to debunk this claim it would have counted against Farage, not helped him.

    Germany sell us more cars than we sell them, so why would they want to damage that trade?

    Germany also sell cars to the USA and other countries outside of the EU but there’s still tariffs on cars from the US and other non-EU countries. It’s naive to believe that the UK will be exempt from something that effects every other non-EU country.

    The German government has told us it would want good trade arrangements with us if we left the EU.

    Good trade arrangements doesn’t mean no tariffs. After all Germany claims it has good trade agreements with the USA and China, despite the tariffs these countries all impose on products from other countries.

    The public adjudged Mr Clegg the loser.

    A YouGov poll of 1,003 voters isn’t definitive in a country with 60 million people.

    They warmed to Mr Clegg when he said thanks to the EU we can get criminals back here to stand trial, despite the obvious counter that we would have extradition arrangements with the EU countries if we did not form part of the criminal justice measures of the current EU.

    One system to extract criminals is better than 27 different agreements.

    A recent good piece of research from Business for Britain shows how the UK has opposed just 55 new EU laws since 1996.

    Opposed in what way? More British MEPs voting against them than for them?

    Also how many EU bills that the UK supported became laws? Without knowing this it’s not possible to determine how much influence the UK has.

    The UK has just 3.6% of the EU Commission, 8.2% of the votes in the Council of Ministers and 9.5% of the MEPs, as Business for Britain has recently reminded us.

    The number of votes in the Council and Parliament are based on the population of the UK as a percentage of the EU. In the Commission each country has one Commissioner who has one vote.

    No wonder we rarely influence policy and rarely stop laws we do not like.

    Just like every other country in the EU. The UK can’t expect to have veto powers or a dominant position when we’re only one part of the EU.

    In other news a report by Ofgen showed that the expensive energy in the UK is due to profiteering by the energy companies (which is why their profits quadrupled in 3 years) and not due to investment in renewable energy.

    Reply The German Finance Minister has made clear the rest of the EU would want a trade agreement with the UK post exit, and would not b e putting tariffs on.

    • Mark B
      Posted March 28, 2014 at 8:20 am | Permalink

      Membership of the EEA / Single Market would negate much of what you have said regarding trade.

      EU Criminals are wanted here because, thanks to the EU, they have been allowed to come here and commit those crimes. Personally, I do not want these people back. It saves us a small fortune in trials and imprisonment.

  52. Edward2
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 10:01 am | Permalink

    In your now usual late epilogue Uni, your key phrase “the UK can’t expect to have veto powers or a dominant position when we’re only one part of the EU” confirms all I need to be know before I make up my mind I want to be out of an organisation you keep telling me we must “obey”

  53. Terry
    Posted March 28, 2014 at 12:55 pm | Permalink

    It’s time we turned the tables on the EU.

    We should be demanding to know what they can do for this country that we cannot do for ourselves and why we should be paying so much money into this Marxist club, when we have so little influence in its final decisions.

    And let’s be realistic, who in the world, sees Mr Rumpy Pumpy and Baroness Ashton as World leaders on the International stage?

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