The UKIP Case

[JRobinson]

very good answers - if I was voting in your area, you might have got my vote.

I may think of more questions to ask you at a later date.
For some reason lots of people are against UKIP, and I'm not entirely sure why.

[Pstaveley]

Thank you for that. As they say 'other UKIP candidates are available'. Nationally there are around 550 of us. I see you come from Hackney, there is a candidate in Hackney South and Shoreditch.

There are essentially 7 reasons why people are against UKIP, they:

1) Are 'tribal voters', i.e. they have always voted for one of the three old failed parties and will not vote for anything else.

2) Confuse UKIP's immigration policies with being xenophobic or racist. UKIP is neither xenophobic or racist. It likes foreigners or is just that UK's services and infrastructure cannot cope with a sudden increase in the level of population.

3) Confuse UKIP with the BNP. UKIP abhors the BNP and anyone associated with the BNP.

4) Think that the UK benefits a lot from the EU and does not want to leave it. This is a line that is regularly given by the media and the three failed old parties. I have not yet heard of any benefits of being in the EU. We want to trade with Europe but not be part of the EU, the two are not linked.

5) Think that UKIP is a single issue party and are only interested in 'proper' political parties. UKIP has a manifesto with 17 policy themes each of which have many policies.

6) Think that UKIP is extremist. If you ignore immigation and membership of the EU, most of UKIP's policies are pretty centre ground. Personally my ideals are closest to the Lib Dems' policies (apart from the EU). However, I can see that many of the UKIP policies could be seen as being radical (but not extreme). However, with the Country in the state it is we need radical actions while resisting any extreme pressures.

7) Think that UKIP is a tiny party that has no hope of forming a Government. In the last National Election (in 2009) UKIP came second ahead of both the Labour Government and the Lib Dems. There are UKIP candidates in 550 of the 650 constituencies. So even in terms of the number of candidates UKIP is bigger than any other party, except of course for the three failed old parties.

There is likely to be a hung Parliament. If so then the smaller parties, including UKIP, will hold the balance of power meaning that they will have far greater influence in the running of this Country than ever before.

Peter Staveley

[JRobinson]

I saw you handing out leaflets on Saturday on the high st. I'd have stopped for a chat, if I hadn't been busy doing important stuff.

[mrtimelover]

Peter,

Can you give me a bit more detail about what UKIP plan to do about islamification of the UK and how UKIP will counteract it?

[Bram]

Peter:

Thanks for all your explanations - you might be of value to your leader

https://www.youtube.com/v/LT5qRqHHoJo

[Juwlz]

Juwlz

The NET cash saving from not being in the EU is £7.6 billion per year. That would pay for a bit more of the NHS, education, policing, prisons etc. However, the real savings from not being in the EU are much higher.

Firstly, the cash that we receive back has to be spent on projects that the EU wants, not what we want. If we had a total say in how that money was spent then more projects that are useful to us could be done.

Secondly, there are the hidden costs of the EU. The Tax Payers Alliance have stated that the total cost of the EU on the UK is around £2,000 per person per year (i.e. £120 billion per year). Those costs include all the additional costs that businesses suffer through the various regulations.

I think the problem is that UKIP try to frighten people with big numbers. 45 million per day spending on Europe sounds like a big number to anybody, but how much would it cost to NOT be in the EU?

I decided the best person to ask would be someone smart who did a degree in economics, and they said apparently it is impossible to work out how much it would cost to not be in the EU, therefore it seems to me unreasonable to complain about how much we spend on something if you don't know for a fact how much the alternative (ie not being in the EU) would cost.

On the UKIP website it says we could save up to £120 bn a year by leaving the EU, so where do you get your 7.5bn figure from? Quite a big difference between the two. Sounds like UKIP don't know how much we'd save either.

I also asked my economist friend about countries like Norway that aren't in the EU and apparently they are what's known as 'free-riders' ie they benefit from the EU without paying the subs. A bit like if you worked in a factory with a strong union which meant that everyone was paid decent wages but you weren't in the union yourself so you benefitted from everybody else paying in. Kind of like a leech. Do you want Britain to be a leech?

I really am against UKIP now, I used to think they were a joke party that I didn't mind because they helped split the Tory vote, but now I wonder if too too many people are buying into this anti-EU stance without questioning what its really all about.

The EU needs to be made better and there are loads of problems but we can't improve it unless we are a part of it. And we can't be a strong country unless we're part of it.

[Big Ben]

Well said Juwlz - couldn't agree more.

[leenewham]

Hi P,

Obviously one of UKIP's main issues is the membership of The European Union. The EU may seem remote to Lewisham West and Penge, and not relevant to the General Election, but did you know that 75% of our laws come from the EU (not Westminster)

Can you clarify where this figure of '75% of all our laws come from the EU' originates?

Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan thinks it's 84%.
Ukip thinks it's 74%.
Jean Le Penn thinks it's 80%.
David Cameron think's it's 'nearly half'
The British Chamber of Commerce states that it's 'about 20%'
The House of Commons Library say's it's 9.1%.
Europe Minister Caroline Flint thinks it's 9.1%.
The Swedish parliament thinks it's 6.1%
The Finnish parliament think's it's 12%
12 and 19 percent say the Lithuanian parliament.

So who is right? Surely these laws apply to everyone, the EU doesn't make laws just for the UK (they don't, I checked).

P.S. As a member state in the EU, we do have a say in these laws and help make them don't we?

Many thanks,

Lee

[Pstaveley]

Juwlz

On the UKIP website it says we could save up to £120 bn a year by leaving the EU, so where do you get your 7.5bn figure from? Quite a big difference between the two. Sounds like UKIP don't know how much we'd save either.

I also asked my economist friend about countries like Norway that aren't in the EU and apparently they are what's known as 'free-riders' ie they benefit from the EU without paying the subs. A bit like if you worked in a factory with a strong union which meant that everyone was paid decent wages but you weren't in the union yourself so you benefitted from everybody else paying in. Kind of like a leech. Do you want Britain to be a leech?

I really am against UKIP now, I used to think they were a joke party that I didn't mind because they helped split the Tory vote, but now I wonder if too too many people are buying into this anti-EU stance without questioning what its really all about.

The EU needs to be made better and there are loads of problems but we can't improve it unless we are a part of it. And we can't be a strong country unless we're part of it.

Sorry for the delay in replying. Apart from being busy I do not seem to be receiving notifications.

There are essentially three different financial costs of EU membership:

1) The cash that we send to the EU.

That is £45m per day/£16.4bn per year.

2) The net cash that we pay the EU, i.e. the payments less the grants we receive.

That is £21m per day/£7.6bn per year.

3) The cost that the Tax Payers Alliance (not UKIP) have calculated to be the cost to businesses and the economy.

That is £328m per day/£120bn per year (or £2,000 per person per year).

In cases (1) and (2) those figures are the Government's own figures, they are not calculated by UKIP and we are not trying to scare people. We are just being Straight Talking and truthful.

Regarding being a leech. All UKIP is campaigning for is to leave the political construct that is the EU. We wish to continue trading with the EU and we, like Switzerland and Norway, would obtain bi-lateral trade agreements with the EU countries. Since we trade at least twice as much with the EU countries as they do with us it is nonsense for people to suggest that once we leave the EU they will stop trading with us. If they do (and that is against their laws to do so) then they will be the ones who lose out not the UK. In fact we will be able to join various other trade associations and trade more freely with them than we are permitted to do now.

Regarding "too many people are buying into this anti-EU stance without questioning what its really all about." The problem is that none of the three failed old parties what to talk about the EU. For them it is a nice cosy relationship. We would welcome people to start debating the EU issues.

Do not forget that the EU ties up all our lives. It controls our economy, the level of legal immigration and most of our laws. That would be fine if it were not for the fact that there is no democracy in the EU, i.e. all the EU laws are made by the 27 commissioners who are not elected and cannot be removed. The EU Parliament has fewer powers than our House of Lords.

I agree that the EU needs to be better. If I felt we could improve it by being part of the EU then I would not be standing for Parliament now. We have been in the EEC/EU for 37 years, how much more time do we need before we can start improving the EU? In reality with more and more countries joining our say will decline. The politicians decided to remove our right of veto without consulting us. In fact it is worse than that because we were promised a referendum on that removal of the veto and they reneged on it. By the way the Conservatives have also reneged on their referendum promise and the Lib Dems keep changing their mind.

Peter Staveley

[Juwlz]

Juwlz

Since we trade at least twice as much with the EU countries as they do with us it is nonsense for people to suggest that once we leave the EU they will stop trading with us.

Peter Staveley

What? How can we trade twice as much with EU as they do with us? This is physically impossible! This is like saying 'I spend more time with you than you spend with me' !!!

[Juwlz]

Juwlz

Do not forget that the EU ties up all our lives. It controls our economy, the level of legal immigration and most of our laws. That would be fine if it were not for the fact that there is no democracy in the EU, i.e. all the EU laws are made by the 27 commissioners who are not elected and cannot be removed. The EU Parliament has fewer powers than our House of Lords.

Peter Staveley

I am told this is not true. Apparently it is not possible to sack individual commissioners but it is possible to have a vote of no confidence and sack the whole lot. Unless things have changed lately.

And anyway, each commissioner is put forward by each country so surely they've in effect been 'elected' by each country. Surely that's the only fair way it could be anyway?

[Juwlz]

There are essentially three different financial costs of EU membership:

1) The cash that we send to the EU.

That is £45m per day/£16.4bn per year.

2) The net cash that we pay the EU, i.e. the payments less the grants we receive.

That is £21m per day/£7.6bn per year.

3) The cost that the Tax Payers Alliance (not UKIP) have calculated to be the cost to businesses and the economy.

That is £328m per day/£120bn per year (or £2,000 per person per year).

In cases (1) and (2) those figures are the Government's own figures, they are not calculated by UKIP and we are not trying to scare people. We are just being Straight Talking and truthful.

Peter Staveley

You are talking in terms of immediate cash spent and received, but how about the benefits of EU membership that aren't immediately measurable - such as the benefits of being members of a large 'union' that has power to negotiate with huge multinational companies (some of which have bigger turnovers than small countries).

Without the strength of Europe these multinationals would have the power to force British (and all european) workers to work for low pay, because we'd have no choice or else they'd go elsewhere. How do you measure this benefit?

The EU is incredibly powerful, so much so that many countries are desperate to be part of it! Why would we throw away our powerful position in the EU?, now that's what I'd call unpatriotic.

[Pstaveley]

I am told this is not true. Apparently it is not possible to sack individual commissioners but it is possible to have a vote of no confidence and sack the whole lot. Unless things have changed lately.

And anyway, each commissioner is put forward by each country so surely they've in effect been 'elected' by each country. Surely that's the only fair way it could be anyway?

That is correct each Commissioner is appointed by each country. However, as you know, those Commissioners and particularly the President (who is appointed by the Commissioners) draft all the legislation which the European Parliament has very limited powers to even amend.

Surely you would expect us the voters to be able to elect those who legislate us?

If nothing else appointing people with that amount of power leads to dubious appointments. Those appointments are very convenient for those politicians who need to temporarily 'leave the UK political system. I am thinking of people such as Peter Mandelson and Neil Kinnock for whom the EU was a politically useful bolt hole. Is that how we want our politicians to treat us?

[Pstaveley]

What? How can we trade twice as much with EU as they do with us? This is physically impossible! This is like saying 'I spend more time with you than you spend with me' !!!

OK I will put it more simply.

UK people and UK businesses spend twice as much money on goods and services located in other EU countries than people and businesses located in other EU countries spend on goods and services located in the UK.

By the way the proportions of economic migrants is even worse. There are around five times as many people from other EU countries working in the UK than people from the UK working in other EU countries.

[Juwlz]

What? How can we trade twice as much with EU as they do with us? This is physically impossible! This is like saying 'I spend more time with you than you spend with me' !!!

OK I will put it more simply.

UK people and UK businesses spend twice as much money on goods and services located in other EU countries than people and businesses located in other EU countries spend on goods and services located in the UK.

By the way the proportions of economic migrants is even worse. There are around five times as many people from other EU countries working in the UK than people from the UK working in other EU countries.

Ok, so you have shown therefore we in Britain NEED the goods and services that are located abroad. So therefore surely we need a good relationship (and a good deal) with those we trade with?

And if five times as many people in the EU come to work in the UK rather than the other way round then great – that must be because we have a strong economy and have lots of jobs that need filling, otherwise surely they wouldn't come!?

[Pstaveley]

You are talking in terms of immediate cash spent and received, but how about the benefits of EU membership that aren't immediately measurable - such as the benefits of being members of a large 'union' that has power to negotiate with huge multinational companies (some of which have bigger turnovers than small countries).

Without the strength of Europe these multinationals would have the power to force British (and all european) workers to work for low pay, because we'd have no choice or else they'd go elsewhere. How do you measure this benefit?

The EU is incredibly powerful, so much so that many countries are desperate to be part of it! Why would we throw away our powerful position in the EU?, now that's what I'd call unpatriotic.

Do you have any evidence that the EU has actually done those negotiations?

Other countries what to be part of the EU because they know that for at least the first 10 years they will be a net beneficiary. At the moment only the UK and Germany are net contributors to the UK. France will shortly also become a net contributor. If you were offered a deal for getting lots of other people's cash for 10 years with few strings attached, would you refuse that offer? No, of course not.

Regarding the EU being incredibly powerful then, yes, we both agree. Unfortunately it is misusing that power. It is the EU that is imposing trade tariffs meaning that our imports from countries outside the EU are either non-existent or are more expensive than from the EU. This means that for us it is difficult to trade with countries such as USA, Africa and most of the Commonwealth.

If we leave the EU UKIP would set up a Commonwealth Free Trade Area (CFTA). Given the extraordinary economic power of the Commonwealth, such a bloc would be a global economic sensation. It could also interlock with other trade blocs to enhance global trade and prosperity. UKIP would retain friendly and profitable trade relationships with EU countries after withdrawal. UKIP would sign a UK-EU Free Trade deal, similar to the free trade deals the EU has with over 50 other non-EU countries but as its largest trading partner.

Regarding our 'powerful position within the EU'. The UK has minimal influence in the European Parliament, where less that 10% of MEPs
are British. The 'British' European Commissioner is not allowed to put Britain first. In the Council of Ministers, British vetoes have been lost, and changes to voting formulae post-Lisbon Treaty have severely weakened the British national position.

So it is I or you who is being unpatriotic?

By the way, in all these replies please do not take my word for it, I am a mere political candidate. Please look at the UKIP policies because they have references that you can look up to see the basis of what I have said. From that I would advise people to do their own research on the issues. Please do not take what previous politicians or the media have said on the EU because most of it is founded on half-truths created mainly to ensure that the EU bureaucracy lives-on for the convenience of both the politicians and the media.

Peter Staveley

[leenewham]

Sorry, can I ask this again:

Can you clarify where this figure of '75% of all our laws come from the EU' originates?

Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan thinks it's 84%.
Ukip thinks it's 74%.
Jean Le Penn thinks it's 80%.
David Cameron think's it's 'nearly half'
The British Chamber of Commerce states that it's 'about 20%'
The House of Commons Library say's it's 9.1%.
Europe Minister Caroline Flint thinks it's 9.1%.
The Swedish parliament thinks it's 6.1%
The Finnish parliament think's it's 12%
12 and 19 percent say the Lithuanian parliament.

So who is right? Surely these laws apply to everyone, the EU doesn't make laws just for the UK (they don't, I checked).

P.S. As a member state in the EU, we do have a say in these laws and help make them don't we?

Many thanks,

Lee

[Pstaveley]

Sorry, can I ask this again:

Can you clarify where this figure of '75% of all our laws come from the EU' originates?

Conservative MEP Daniel Hannan thinks it's 84%.
Ukip thinks it's 74%.
Jean Le Penn thinks it's 80%.
David Cameron think's it's 'nearly half'
The British Chamber of Commerce states that it's 'about 20%'
The House of Commons Library say's it's 9.1%.
Europe Minister Caroline Flint thinks it's 9.1%.
The Swedish parliament thinks it's 6.1%
The Finnish parliament think's it's 12%
12 and 19 percent say the Lithuanian parliament.

So who is right? Surely these laws apply to everyone, the EU doesn't make laws just for the UK (they don't, I checked).

P.S. As a member state in the EU, we do have a say in these laws and help make them don't we?

Many thanks,

Lee

Lee

Sorry, I am trying to do some research to backup why we say 75%. Hopefully next week I will get back to you. However, I can provide some information.

The problem starts with what you define as 'a law'. Do you, for example, count Statutory Instruments which are made by a Secretary of State without any consultation with Parliament? What about laws that do go through the Houses of Parliament but have large parts of sections that are enacting EU requirements? Then there are powers given by the EU that do not have to be enacted but if they are then they are largely fully prescribed.

Essentially nobody really knows the answer. The Germans did a study of German law and came up with the 84% figure. UKIP always takes a conservative amount and has reduced it to allow for German law being different to UK law, which is where the 75% figure comes from.

My understand of the House of Commons library figure are just the main laws enacting EU requirements and ignoring the Statutory Instruments.

The important point is the in my opinion any figure greater than 0% is too much. We elect Westminster politicians to create, debate and amend UK laws. We do not expect them to abdicate that responsibility to a number of appointed Commissioners who we cannot elect nor remove.

So, as I say, I will try to get back to you to confirm where the 75% figure comes from.

Regarding "we do have a say in these laws and help make them don't we?". Unfortunately that is not really the case. The Council of Ministers do set a general policy, sometimes. However, the laws are made by appointed Commissioners who are meant to represent the interests of the EU not their country. Those laws are debated in the European Parliament but they have very limited powers to amend that legislation. Generally any changes that are made are done by secret 'deals' done behind closed doors. Whether money changes hands or other bribes are made in those rooms one can only speculate on. Certainly the MEPs do not have a role in making those amendments.

Obviously now that there are so many countries in the EU we have less than 10% influence in any outcome.

So to answer your question. No we do not have a say in those EU laws and we do not help to make them.

[Tim Lund]

Peter:

Why doesn't UKIP make more of its local (SE England) MEP, the awkward accountant, Marta Andreasen - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marta_Andreasen? I want political parties to explain what is really going on, and boring though it may be, accountancy helps.

If the answer is that UKIP finds ignorant rudeness such as this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bypLwI5AQvY more of a turn on than a smart foreign woman who lives in Barcelona, then maybe you have a clue as to why the UKIP appeal is limited.

As to arguments over the percentage of our laws made by the EU - you must know that this is a bogus argument.

[Pstaveley]

Tim

I would say that we do use Marta Andreasen and her knowledge very well. For example there are videos and other information produced by her on the UKIP website. The problem is that the media not only find the EU boring but do their best to ignore any issues regarding the EU that do not suit their views, which tend to be the same as the three failed old parties' views.

The manner of Nigel Farage is no worse than seen in the House of Commons (I presume that you have listened to the banter that going on in that chamber, particularly at Prime Minister's Question Time). Indeed Nigel has been called a lot worse in the European Parliament yet the media has chosen not to broadcast those attacks. It could be argued that the only reason that you know of Nigel's speech is because he used strong language. If he had been milder than it would not have been reported by the media and the general public would know even less about the workings of the EU and its lack of democracy.

I presume that you realise that President Herman Van Rumpuy was not elected, cannot be removed and yet represents over 600 million people. He also earns more than the President of the USA. I also presume that you know that Baroness Ashton was appointed to the post of e High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy of the EU. Again she was not elected, cannot be removed and receives a very high salary. How should UKIP try to get across the undemocratic nature of the EU if the media will not report what is happening in our name?

I would be interested to know why you feel that UKIP's appeal is limited. UKIP came second in the last national election, ahead of the (Labour) Government, which is a feat that no other small political party has achieved. We are also fielding 561 candidates in the General Election, which is the highest number of candidates we have ever achieved and makes us the fourth biggest political party. Therefore, it is slightly annoying that UKIP has been often overlooked in favour of the Green Party, which is fielding fewer candidates.

I would also be interested to know why you feel that the issue of the percentage of British laws made in the EU is a bogus argument. I am sure that many of the general public think that the General Election is important because they think that Westminster has full control of British laws. You can argue the exact percentage but if the laws are actually being made in another country buy 27 unelected commissioners then surely we should have a debate about that.