EU mess

Don't worry, this isn't a recipe for a meringue, cream and summer fruit dessert.  The mess I refer to is the way things are going with the Conservatives re-negotiation of the terms of membership of Britain's participation in the European Union.

Prime Minister, David Cameron, has started the process of re-negotiation.  It is barely a month, since the Conservatives were elected, with a small majority, to the Westminster Parliament.  A referendum is promised by the end of 2017 and yet to hear some people, you would think that the vote is around the corner.

On this issue, many people, myself included have some kind of an axe or other, to grind.

• The media, particularly the BBC, who receive lavish funding from the EU, are strongly pro-EU and so push an agenda that seeks to promote talk of a Tory split and faction fighting among Tories,  David Cameron is accused of issuing ultimatums to Cabinet colleagues about toeing an as yet undefined line!  And so on.  We also hear that Rupert Murdoch has had a Damascene conversion and now wants Britain to stay in the EU!  
• UKIP and noisy people that want out and really want no renegotiation, just out now (or yesterday, if we can 'fix' the records).
• Big business mostly declaring a doom and gloom future if Britain leaves the EU.
• Myself, my axe to grind is that I have my own 'red lines' - more on these shortly - and I don't want these issues to be lost in peripheral matters.  

How are people better informed about the renegotiation of say free movement of labour and the effect on immigration, if they are distracted by stories of a Tory split or Deutsche Bank's latest view on the precarious economic future for Britain.  The distraction from UKIP will, over time become a dull pain.  They need to freshen-up their message rather than just saying the same thing over and over and over again.  'UKIP wants Britain out of the EU' - we know, we get it!  Change the record!

I know that I have to be patient and await the outcome of these negotiations.  Cameron and the other leaders need come to a resolution to very complex matters and I don't expect that these will happen over-night.  Even the UKIP, 'Out now' solution, is a bit more nuanced than the phrase suggests.

I would suggest that all British people need to be patient and don't allow ourselves to be swayed by these people who want to bounce our opinion and thus our vote, in one direction or another.  I would request that organizations like the BBC, big business and UKIP, just pipe down.  We are not fools, we know where you stand, and we want to hear the deal that Cameron eventually gets for us and then we will make-up our minds.

My expectation is that once negotiations are concluded, there would be a period of, say, three months, during which the Yes and No campaign can put out their stalls and seek to persuade one way or another but until we know the deal, any comment seeking to persuade, one way or another is just noise - it might help to inform the debate (as do my 'red lines', I hope) but stirring up trouble and rifts and divisions doesn't help. I wouldn't though suggest that debate is stifled more that it is focused on the real issues rather than just posturing and saying nothing new.  I would also say that Opinion Polls, yes the same organisations that got the GE2015 results, so wrong, have a part to play.  These could strengthen the hand of Cameron and the negotiating team as they send a message to our EU partners about how seriously the UK wants change.

Talking of the No campaign.  There has been mention made that this should be led by Nigel Farage, the leader of UKIP.  This would be completely wrong.  Farage has done a great job of pushing the need for a referendum but he is very divisive and would likely cause many potential No voters to turn away in disgust and vote Yes, simply because he is there.  A far better No campaign leader would be Boris Johnson or Daniel Hannan.  The latter has consistency and, as a Euro MP, a long history of opposing and exposing the anti-democratic nature of the EU as it is currently constituted.  Johnson has great voter appeal.  Cameron is said to expect to work for a Yes vote and so, were Johnson to lead the No campaign then this would suggest an easy transition and change of power, should the Nos prevail.  As another possible leader, Sir James Dyson, a dynamic business leader, who is much admired for his entrepreneurial flair and business success.  Being a non-politician, he may also be more trusted by the 'man in the street'.

Now my 'red lines'.  As with any negotiation, we won't get all that we want but here's the framework.

Free movement of Labour - I must declare an interest as I have benefited from this, during my working life.  Therefore, along with other experiences of the benefits, I see this as beneficial to our economy and our country.  Yes it potentially means an influx of cheap labour but this is good for the country.  There are very definite challenges to be faced - schooling, health systems etc., but these will resolve themselves, over time.  A growing and healthy economy can afford such 'problems'.
I find the people that argue against this as somewhat hypocritical.  We don't want cheap labour doing jobs that need doing, and we oppose reform of a welfare system which makes it 'uneconomic' for people to come off of welfare and take low paying jobs, seems to be the crux of their argument.

Bureaucracy and Reciprocity - Big words.  More simply put, there are areas where the EU isn't needed.  Working hours in Britain - that's a matter for the UK parliament, not un-elected officials in Brussels.  HSE, Britain not EU, there is a whole raft of EU legislation - or more accurately, legislation that starts out as a Brussels 'directive' and becomes UK legislation because we have no choice but to implement it, under current rules - and this needs wholesale review and likely abolition for the greater parts of it.  Foreign relations?  Britain doesn't need, except perhaps on areas limited to certain trade discussions, an un-elected commissioner representing her.  History has shown that we are quite capable of doing so, ourselves.

Funding - The original benefits of the EU or the Common Market, as it was then called, effectively related to free trade - the sale of goods from one country to another without the imposition of tariffs or other barriers.  That is the place to where we should return.  Therefore the need for much of the funding for the monolithic bureaucracy and EU organisations would disappear.  Why should any country in the EU subsidize another?  If I join a club of some sort, I can expect to pay an annual subscription fee for the running and administration of the club.  I don't expect to pay based on my income, nor do I expect to pay fees for people that can't afford to be in the club, in the first place.  I certainly don't expect to pay their bar tab every single day that they are living beyond their means!
 
Democracy - Becomes somewhat moot if funding and reciprocity are addressed but this swings two ways.  Firstly, the EU Commission, if it is still needed (but I can't think why it would), must be democratically elected - that would suggest it must be appointed by either the people, through direct elections, or through the European Parliament.  My own view is that both the Commission and the Parliament should be abolished and much money saved.  I can't believe that all that hot air and cant is good for the environment!  Neither is the to-ing and fro-ing between Brussels and Strasbourg every month, nor the EU-citizen funded traveling between home country and Brussels/Strasbourg and back, on a weekly/daily basis.  Every time I think of that, I think of all those climatologists that attend these conferences in exotic places, traveling by jet - private or commercial - to do so, or Al Gore's house that uses so much hydrocarbon-provided power that it is said to be like the Great Wall of China - visible from space!  But I digress.  So less democracy in terms of a talking shop in Europe but then democracy in terms of consensus forming decisions and then acceptance by all.  So long as the 'club rules' and the 'club charter' aren't being infringed then all governments must accept the will of the majority of voters, with voting rights.

Free Trade - this should form the basis of 'club' membership.  Goods and services (see also  free movement of labour) can be traded between club members without the imposition of tariffs.  That would apply to import tariffs - so no customs duties on equipment manufactured in Germany and sold into Slovenia or Britain, etc.  Also though, no hidden tariffs, such as higher rates of local value added taxes on such goods.  This wouldn't preclude a state subsidizing its own industry, where that might 'harm' the industry of another 'club' member.  So if France wanted to subsidize French sugar beet growers and processors and this allowed these companies to then compete unfairly against German or British growers, then let them.  It's France's money to do with as it pleases.  It is not for Britain or Germany to say how France supports or doesn't support its rural communities.  Equally, it is not for Britain or Germany to pay for France's support for its rural communities. Free Trade also means that 'club' members should be free to trade with non-club members, as they wish.  So, if Britain or Germany decided that French sugar beet was too high-priced and they could get it cheaper from say, Turkey, then they would be free to negotiate purchases and set import tariffs as they see fit.  If Turkish farmers are able to produce and sell sugar beet cheaper than French farmers, then why should British or German consumers miss out on Turkish efficiency.

In terms of imports from non-club members, these should not be subject to restrictions - individual sovereign states can enter into bi-lateral agreements - except that any onward sale of such imports need to meet certain criteria.  This criteria would relate to the value added in the club member state.  So if Britain and China concluded a bi-lateral trade agreement with very low import tariffs (or better yet, none) this could not be used as a 'back door' for China to then sell these on to other 'club' members with which it doesn't have a bi-lateral agreement unless a certain value was added in Britain.  Let's say 60%.  If a UK-based company imported parts from China, assembled these in the UK and then sold them within a 'club' member country, then the UK value added to those parts must be greater than 60% or whatever number is decided upon.  We don't want dumping but neither do we want restrictive practices that protect inefficient local industries.

Non-EU wide and other  agreements - These would be agreements that are established between sovereign nations - be they 'club' members or not which cover restricted topics.  So, if Britain, Germany, Iceland, Australia, Brazil and Norway wanted to establish an agreement that allowed for a fast track extradition process between themselves, then this would be allowed and wouldn't require any input or permission from other 'club' members.  It's called reciprocity - 'club' members only need to be involved on matters relating the the raison d'etre of the 'club' - free trade etc., and to not interfere in matters that are decided by other nations and which don't impinge upon these.  Such an extradition treaty would be outwith the 'club' charter and so no business of other 'club' members.  Similarly, if certain 'club' members wanted to establish a political and fiscal union and even a common currency, then they should be free to do so, so long as they do not seek to impose that union or its effects on other 'club' members.  So by all means have a Euro currency but don't expect non-Euro countries, to bail out Euro members!  If I join the Royal Automobile Club, I don't expect to be tapped-up by members of the rival Automobile Association, when that organisation runs into difficulties.  It's a different 'club', I have chosen to not be a member and so shouldn't be required to pay anything for its failings.



Dear reader, be patient in the coming months.  Listen to all of the views, look to the motive of the speaker and then form your own opinion, as I am sure you would anyway.  Above all though, let's be patient and simply demand clarity on what the renegotiated deal means for us and our country.  Then vote for what is best for Britain.  I currently lean towards voting for  BREXIT but, in the words of the great Joan Armatrading, I am 'open to persuassion'

Debate comment

I managed to watch most of last night's 'Leaders debate' via Sky News.  Hmm!

Is it me or was it basically 6 against one?

We had the leader of the SNP, who isn't even standing for parliament (see here) simply stirring the pot.  She was mainly there to make sure that Red Ed Miliband knows who he will be reporting to, should he enter into any kind of alliance with the SNP.

We had the leader of the Welsh Nationalists who, given a perfect opportunity to attack Labour, over its criminally inept running of the NHS, in Wales, chose not to do so.

We also had the Greens leader, the Australian Natalie Bennett, whose nasal twang failed to hide her extreme left-wing views.  James Delingpole, writing in Watermelons, his brilliantly written expose of the environmentalist movement, called 'greens' Watermelons - green on the outside and red on the inside but Nuttalie Bennett managed to be red all the way through.  Out of politeness, no one mentioned that Brighton town council, the only one run by the Greens, in the UK, now has a worse record on environmental recycling than under the previous regime.

Nigel Farage, from UKIP managed to make every issue link back to immigration and he successfully managed to get across the point that while the UK remains in the European Union, we can do very little to curb immigration from within the EU.

Nick Clegg, until recently, sitting around the Cabinet table with Conservative leader, David Cameron, sought to distance himself from the Tories and make claims of bravery, for the good of the country, etc..

Ed Miliband  pushed his economic idiocy - spend more, borrow more but we won't tax more - and as was to be expected, wrapped himself in the NHS.  As said earlier, he wasn't punished on the shocking state of the NHS in Labour-run Wales and banged on about spending more on the NHS, again and again.  Miliband mentioned the situation where one NHS hospital was treating or assessing people in an emergency tent, erected in a car park.  My own view is that I would rather be examined in a tent in a car park than treated in the Labour run Mid Staffs hospitals where people died unnecessarily because of Labour policy.

David Cameron was located on the edge, both literally and policy-wise.  He was standing on the economic competence of the Conservatives and had a good story to present - tellingly, none of the other parties managed to attack the Tory successes.  Cameron made some good points about all of the other parties wanting to tax, borrow and spend more and, addressing Nick Clegg, his propensity to 'pick and mix' which for Coalition policies he now  professes public support.

The Guardian newspaper, according to the BBC Today programme, (I would never buy the newspaper, I much prefer Andrex) referring to the debates spoke of  UK politics being 'fractured'.  I disagree with the newspaper.  UK politics are not fractured they are split.  We have the Conservatives on one side, providing a right of centre platform and then we have the other six parties, mentioned above, all pushing a platform of more spending - that's what less austerity means - more borrowings and higher taxes.  They all know, even the looniest Green, that taxing the 'rich' will never raise enough tax to pay for all of their welfare policies, and so taxes on the middle classes will have to increase.

This General Election presents the UK with a stark choice - continue taking the Conservative economic medicine which has done much to restore the health of the UK economy or go for any one of the others which will spend , borrow and tax more and will continue to impoverish our children and grandchildren.

There is almost only one choice - vote Conservative or perhaps vote UKIP where they have a chance against Labour.

UK elections

I know that the UK General Election will not occur until May 2015 but things are starting to heat-up, so let's take a look at the current state of play.

The 'elephant in the room' many would suggest is UKIP (but see below).  I am not so sure.  I can see that UKIP will damage both major parties but perhaps the Conservatives a little more.  Can they though make a breakthrough?  In by-elections, as former MP Louise Mensch has pointed out, they have done well, where the UKIP candidate is a defector.  They won in Clacton and seem to be ahead in Rochester and Strood.  However, will they fare as well when they come-up against a sitting MP with a reasonable majority?  Especially if that MP is Conservative and an overt Euro-sceptic? My sense is that faced with such a choice, people will look beyond UKIP's headline 'out of Europe' and 'no immigration' policies and consider that there isn't much policy meat there.  And, what there is, has a distinctly socialist taste to it.

I accept that there is disillusionment with the main parties but I think that on the day, people will stand in the voting booth, see the Conservative or Labour incumbent and either vote for them or for their opposite number, if the opposite number has a chance of winning.  That is, in Conservative or Labour  seats, where the other of the two main parties were second, the voter will consider switching between those two.  Where there existed a large majority, at the last election, for either party, then they will consider moving their vote to UKIP.  So it is the 'protest vote' in such cases that is movable and not the core.

No doubt UKIP enthusiasts will say I am wrong and that Nigel Farage is 'breaking the mould' of British politics but I just don't see that happening.  The British are very conservative, when it comes down to it.  Those of you with a long memory will recall the same being said about the Social Democratic Party and the so called  'gang of four'  - much was written and said by the political pundits but come the day, people didn't fall in behind their SDP candidates and eventually the party merged or was subsumed, depending on your viewpoint, into the Liberal Party to form the Liberal Democrats.

So UKIP?  Good local MPs like Douglas Carswell will likely hold onto their seat.  Maybe Farage will be elected and maybe also a few others.  One problem that they have though, is that their most well known personalities are elected members of the European Parliament and so if they stand in the UK General Election, then they will be open to accusations around their having their noses firmly stuck into the EU trough or, if they resign and stand, as causing unnecessary expense for the British taxpayer, etc..

The Lib Dems?  Not sure that they are entirely in terminal decline but a post election merger with Labour wouldn't be too outrageous.  Many, some would say most, Lib Dem policies are very socialist.  Indeed, in some areas, the Lib Dems seem to outdo the Labour party in their interventionist, nannying kind of way.  The Lib Dems will suffer badly (and rightly in my view) at the next election and will lose significant numbers of seats, perhaps even, being wiped-out in Scotland.

So to the Conservatives.  They are very trusted on economic matters but there is a strong sense that on the very important issue of the EU, David Cameron cannot entirely be trusted (this indeed is a big part of the reason for the rise of UKIP).  On crime, the Conservatives have a good story to tell.  Similarly so on Welfare, where people see the 'welfare cap' as a good thing, (though still too generous) and other welfare reforms as long overdue, and on Education, where there is a quiet revolution underway - Trojan horse school scandals, notwithstanding.  On defence matters people are  trying to square the idea of defence cuts with an increasing need for military engagements around the globe.  The partnering approach to this is being accepted (grudgingly).  On the environment, there is not much 'clear green water' between any of the parties.  All slavishly follow the highly flawed IPCC reports and the fatuous EU Carbon Emission Targets, though I sense that there is a growing sense of scepticism within Conservative ranks - not least because of the economic costs involved.  You can expect that scepticism to soar if there are power outages during the coming UK winter.

All said and done, I believe that the Conservatives will be the largest party at Westminster after the next General Election.  Though they will likely be short of an overall majority and with a much diminished Lib Dem party, have difficulty in forming a coalition.  Given the passing of the Lib Dems favoured legislation on fixed term parliaments, this will present the UK with a period of political instability!

Which just leaves us with the Labour Party.  Prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum, Labour probably thought that the Conservatives were their main opponents.  Keep banging-on about tax cuts for the rich and so on and Labour would sweep to power.  The way of the UK system certainly favours them.  Notionally, they require just over 35% of the votes to be in Number 10.  However, that is much less certain now.  The SNP, who, in my view, are the real 'elephant in the room' are expected to make very significant gains at the expense of Labour.    To many Scottish voters, they are faced with a choice between a socialist Labour party that represents the whole of the UK and a socialist SNP that puts Scotland's interests, first.  Why would a Scottish socialist vote for Labour?

And that is before you take account of the turmoil in which Labour finds itself, in Scotland.  The Scottish Labour leader, Johann Lamont, has resigned and in the process lambasted Ed Miliband and the London-based Labour elite.  While Ms Lamont has lost a Christmas fraternal greetings card from Ed, she has done Scottish Labour (and the people of Scotland) a great service, with her exposure of Miliband's inadequacies.

It is not only in Scotland that Labour is coming apart.  On the economy, their solution of 'what we need is more debt and more borrowing' doesn't resonate.  People know that this is how we got into the mess in the first place.  And they don't forget who was in charge at that time!  On Europe, the charge is that 'Labour don't trust the people' and not agreeing to a referendum, indeed opposing the Conservative backbencher attempts to enshrine one in law, just reinforce the view that Labour are pro-EU.  On immigration, a very hot topic for voters and a vote winner for UKIP, Labour are seen as the architects of the current situation.  The Conservatives don't get off scot-free but immigration is a stick of rock with Labour written all the way through it!

Thinking about that - the  two big UKIP issues - immigration and the EU, see them diametrically opposed to Labour.  So if these are key issues for the electorate, one would expect to see Labour suffering more than the Conservatives.  The latter certainly lean more UKIP's way on these issues.

Back to Ed Miliband.  What a sorry excuse for a party leader.  One who owes his fratricidal elevation to union block votes and who is now in a continual sniping war with the very same union bosses who 'annoited' him and whose unions bankroll his party.

The silent support for Miliband, from his front-bench colleagues is deafening in its absence.  The buffoonish Ed Balls thinks he should be party leader, while ignoring his exceedingly close proximity to the Treasury, when Labour were in power and ruining the economy.  The Labour deputy leader, Harriet Harman, is fixated on pushing a 'feminazi' agenda by wearing slogan shirts in parliament.  When she is not seeing evil intent in every utterance by or action of, a male she must sit, in her quiet moments and ponder how foolish she and her husband, fellow MP Jack Dromey, were to push a Paedophile Information Exchange agenda, when they were on the executive of the National Council for Civil Liberties.  It is a sign of great concern that she would think how foolish they were rather than how wrong.  This alone should be enough to consign her (and him) to the rubbish bin of political history.

So while these Labour heavy-hitters are so otherwise engaged, Ed continues to flounder.  Some people say that politics is about policies and, they are largely right but don't discount the personality factor.   Nick Clegg came out of the 2010 Election debates so much better than Gordon Brown and David Cameron because of his 'niceness'.  Brown was seen as arrogant and less competent than he himself believed, and Cameron's message was delivered in a manner that was perhaps uncaring.

The 2015 General Election debates will see a personally confident Cameron versus a bumbling Miliband.  Miliband's speaking, the nasal and whiny delivery just grates on one.  Whatever message he is trying to put across gets lost in a general annoyance with the delivery!  Farage will do okay, in his matey, ' I might drink in the saloon bar but I am in touch with the views of those in the public bar' approach but I doubt he will have the breadth of subject grasp that will survive scrutiny.  Clegg?  He will be caught between a rock and a hard place - trying to defend the Lib Dems time at the top table and to differentiate.  (Incidentally, a much better analogy that rock and a hard place is 'being between the dog and the tree'!)

The issues?  The economy, immigration, EU and welfare.  Funded tax cuts rather than debt-funded ones will appeal.   I don't think the NHS will loom as large as in previous elections.  Labour will bang on about it but are very susceptible on the fiasco of Labour-run NHS in Wales and the truly shocking incidents at Mid Staffs hospitals and elsewhere.

So a hung parliament in 2015 and a further election later that year or early in 2016, once Labour have a new leader.  Oh and not forgetting a much improved Westminster presence for the SNP.

File this one away and come back and see how accurate I am!!



 

That £1.7Bn extra contribution

First I should declare an interest.  I know that this is a novel approach among political commentators but I must.

I believe that Britain would be better off out of the European Union.

That said, all of the talk about the so called extra money that Britain will have to contribute is pure political posturing.

All of the UK politicians know that the system by which the extra contribution is calculated is one to which they all agreed.  It is, if you like, a rule of the club.  It is the same rule that gave Britain a reduction in contributions back in 2008, when our economy was very poorly (that was during the last Labour government, in case you had forgotten!).

Is the system crazy?  Most people would say that any system, that in times like this demands extra funds from the UK, has to be flawed.  When you couple that with the same system also seeking further contributions from ailing Italy and a near-dead Greece, then you can see the point.  When that same system then takes some of that money and passes it to the EU economic powerhouse that is Germany, it would indeed seem like the lunatics have taken over the asylum.  Layer onto that the spectacle of France also getting a rebate, when they are very much the masters of their own economic malaise and you have the 'icing on the cake'!

However, as said earlier, this is the system to which all of these countries, signed-up.  So, despite the posturing - and that is exactly what it is - by David Cameron, the UK should pay.

The argument therefore shouldn't  be about the size and value of the contribution.  The discussion should be on what the bloated EU does with the funds it receives (other than rebate some member states).

The EU budget is too high and the EU bureaucracy is far too large and not fit for purpose.  That refers to the EU Commission, the European 'parliament' and all of the other EU organisations.  My earlier declared opposition to the EU stems from the fact that the 'club' has morphed into something for which many Britons did not vote.  The 1975 referendum was about the so called 'Common Market'  - the establishment of a free market where goods and services and yes, people, could move freely.  That's it.  No talk of EU working time directives, straight bananas and ceding of UK fishing grounds.  No fat bureaucracy seeking to supplant sovereign governments.  No aim to bring in, as member states, many new countries with little or no history of democracy and large numbers of low paid workers.  No acceptance that year after year the 'club's' accounts would fail to be approved by auditors.

So David Cameron and the so far silent, Ed Miliband and the over-noisy Nigel Farage, should be focusing not on Britain 'welshing' on an agreed rule of membership but on getting the people of the UK a referendum on membership of the EU 'club' and on getting the EU budget under control.

These are the key issues around the EU.  Britain's continued membership and, if it is decided to remain a member,  how to remove the democratic deficit at the heart of the club and to make it work for the people of Europe.

In all of this, we know where David Cameron and the Conservatives Party stand - kind of!  We know that they are in favour of an In/Out referendum - but not until 2017 - and we know that they favour reform of the EU budget and of finding ways to stem the flood of economic immigrants that continue to come to Britain.

We also know that UKIP wants a very early referendum.  They are not talking about next week but one coinciding with the May 2015 General Election wouldn't go amiss.  They too want to tear-up the rule book as regards the free movement of people - otherwise known as immigration! - but they want to do this from outside the EU.

The Lib Dems?  Well the EU has always afforded them a stage on which they are magnified, where their closet socialist ideas can be cloaked in 'communitaire' terms and made to seem less extreme.

The question though, is where do the Labour Party stand?  They haven't said yes or no, to a referendum, that is.  Their spokesman yesterday, simply refused to say whether or not Labour would pay the  extra contribution but really that is a sideshow.  To me it is clear that Labour would never now offer a referendum on EU membership.  They won't say so and they hedge their bets but to come out and say that they will deny the British people a say on the  matter would cost them dearly, in terms of lost votes.

The large-scale immigration that Britain has seen, attacks the Labour heartlands and core vote.  If these people can be bothered to vote  see here , then they would compound their desertion of  Labour by actively transferring their votes to UKIP which more overtly addresses the issue that they see as important.

So don't expect Labour to come out in favour of a referendum.  Any party that can get the UK into such an awful economic state, leave a note to the incoming Chancellor saying ' there's no money left' and then, just a couple of years later claim to have any shred of economic competence is such a stranger to honesty and the truth that one can only conclude these words have been removed from their Labour versions of the dictionary!

Just as Labour is dishonest on the economy - they know that the only way their economic pledges can be paid for is to raise general taxation - general as in hitting most of the working population and not just the so called millionaires - so they display rank dishonesty on the subject of the EU.  I would have more respect for Labour if they came out and said ' We support the EU because it reflects our long-held core belief that appointed elites are much better at managing things like countries and communities, than the people themselves.  We believe that nationhood, however long established, has no place in the modern world.  We believe that democracy has run its course and now is the time for educated technocrats to steer the countries of the EU, through these troubled times'  Of course though, they won't!

So to David Cameron and George Osborne, my message is clear.  Pay the money that we owe.  That is the British way - we don't cheat or walk away from our debts.  Turn it though into a positive by re-opening the debate about the EU budget.  Also expose Labour relentlessly, for their avoidance of a stated policy on Britain's continued membership of the EU.  Spike UKIP's guns by bringing forward the In/Out referendum or at least try to do so - this might even have the advantage of flushing out Labour!

My message to Nigel Farage is this.  You might see this as a God sent gift and a great aid to your Rochester and Strood by-election hopes but put aside party political thoughts, for a moment and consider the timing of this story.  Who benefits?  Most probably, UKIP.  Who loses?  Most probably the Conservatives.  However, in the bigger picture, the big winners are the EU bureaucracy and the Labour Party.  Have a care that you don't let a short term advantage blind you to the realities of EU politics.

Carswell and UKIP

I am not sure that the defection, from the Conservative Party to UKIP, is really such a surprise.  Carswell is refreshingly independent and has pursued issues in such a manner.  He has long been an opponent of the continually encroaching nature of the European Union and its repeated erosion of the long held rights of Britons.

What should be worrying for the Conservatives is that Carswell is at the forefront of exploring the new 'e-led' ways of engaging with voters and so his defection represents a real loss.

Equally, it shouldn't be any surprise that Carswell has resigned his seat and so forces a by-election.  This is the action of a man of principle and sets an honourable example for others to follow.

There are rumours that up to eight other Conservative MPs are considering defecting to UKIP.  Some of these will be based on principles, as was Carswell's and some will be based on fear and political calculation - they expect a high threat from UKIP in the next election.

This defection is a problem for Cameron and the Conservatives.

Labour too, are not immune though its adherents are perhaps more in tune with the leftist/statist policies and direction of the EU.  Labour too, has often displayed a country last approach to issues as clearly evidenced by their obsession with the failed multi-culturalist policy.

For Cameron and the Conservatives, this defection is the fruit of a failed policy.  Cameron has offered a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the European Union but there is a very strong sense that his heart really isn't in it and that he will present whatever terms he manages to renegotiate as a significant victory and so justifying the UK remaining in the EU.  "Today, fresh from all-night discussions with our EU partners, I can announce that the UK has retained the right to have round dustbins and on that victory, I will be recommending that the UK stays in the EU" or something like that!

The election of Jean Claude Juncker showed how ineffectual Cameron has been in Europe and how he was out-maneuvered by Angela Merkel and I have no doubt, by his own advisers.  Betrayal would not be too strong a word for how the UK was treated and yet Cameron still thinks he can treat with such people.  Either he is a fool or he takes the British people for fools.  Carswell can see this and so can the rapidly growing band of UKIP supporters.

The EU is a paper tiger.  They led Ukraine to believe that they would support them and now that push has come to shove, they have deserted them in the face of Russian aggression and real-politik.  Cameron and the UK government should abandon EU organisations and withhold funds from the EU beast, forthwith.  Let the EU take us to whatever kind of court that they want.  How many tanks does the European Court have?  Tell them to go to the socialist hell towards which they are daily pulling the UK.

Cameron should make it clear that the negotiations have already started and that we will use bully boy tactics to get what we want.  If there are counter-measures taken, then we will retaliate.  The UK has always prospered in the past, when it has stood by basic principles.  We can be taught nothing from the newly found  'democracies' of Europe - and I include Germany and France and Italy as being new! - about doing the right thing and following our long-held traditions.

All we need and want from the EU is a trade agreement.  We don't want directives on how long we work - the sovereign government of the UK can decide on that.  We don't want orders on what shape is acceptable for a banana or a cucumber or how much of the fish in Britain's waters, we can catch - the sovereign government of the UK can decide on these things.  We certainly don't want to rely on a European Army or Foreign Service to represent our interests - we know that they won't!

The EU has no legitimacy and the UK should have no part of it.  That is the message that will stop the defections and will restore the Conservatives to power.  Oh and by the way, those defections aren't just in Westminster!

October 11, 2014 Update

Douglas Carswell has duly and deservedly won the Clacton by-election.  There is much talk of this being a big problem for the Conservatives  and David Cameron.  No doubt that this is a blow but it can hardly be said that it was unexpected.

Perhaps the biggest issue from the voting on October 9, was what happened in the by-election for the till then always solid Labour seat of Heywood and Middleton.  Here, Labour retained the seat though their winning majority was slashed by 90% and they scraped in with a 617 majority.  This shows four things to me.

• Labour are as much endangered by UKIP as are the Conservatives, indeed since Labour are seen as the pro-immigration party, perhaps more so in traditional working class areas..  
• For Labour to escape the UKIP threat, they need to commit to offering a referendum on European Union membership.  I can't see this happening though, until there is a Labour MP that defects to UKIP.
• The Conservative message of 'Vote UKIP, get Labour'   doesn't work in natural Labour areas.  There, the argument can be made (as was at Heywood) 'Vote Conservative, get Labour'  - The Conservatives polled 3,400 votes and so could have delivered a major blow to Labour had just 20% of these switched to UKIP. 
• The Conservatives need to enter into a pact with UKIP - either formally or informally - and agree that pro-referendum candidates will not face UKIP opposition.  Also, where UKIP is strong, Clacton, Thurrock, Eastleigh, Heywood, for examples the Conservatives will not oppose them.  I know that this goes right against the grain but the reality is, that to do otherwise puts Labour into No. 10 and gives them 5 more years to continue to wreck the UK and the UK economy.

Congratulations to Douglas Carswell and commiserations to John Bickley (UKIP Heywood).  I think that Mark Reckless, the later defector from the Conservatives, will have a tougher time in Rochester and Strood but with how UK politics is today, and generally the people's disillusionment with the out of touch elites, anything is possible.