Alan Sked makes some interesting and important points. But anyone in the European Commission would tell him that, while they had no fear of British withdrawal under a Conservative government, they had no such confidence in Labour. In fact, they say that entirely openly. The terms of the "debate" in this country, however, are completely skewed against reality.
For example, the party that Professor Sked founded but now reviles is treated as if it were a major force because it recently garnered 7.5 per cent of the eligible vote in the least populous areas. It only has to lose a by-election and its defeated candidate is invited onto the Question Time panel.
There is a party which is actually going to have seats in the next Parliament, unlike Professor Sked's former vehicle, and which is already committed explicitly to the repatriation of industrial and regional policy, as well as at least implicitly to that of agriculture and fisheries.
It also has a range of economic policies, with more to come, that are simply incompatible with the EU's permanent, because fundamental, pursuit of everything that UKIP supporters could possibly want and more. It is exactly the EU's position, as it is exactly UKIP's position, that the only problem with British austerity is that it does not go far enough.
Labour kept Britain out of the euro. It provided three times as many votes against Maastricht as the Conservatives did, with the latter not including UKIP's rising star, Neil Hamilton, who voted in favour of Maastricht. It voted against the Single European Act, unlike Neil Hamilton.
It voted year on year against the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies between 1979 and 1997; again, Neil Hamilton never did so, not even once. It is the only party ever to have had a manifesto commitment to withdrawal, in 1983, when Neil Hamilton was elected against it. It held the only ever referendum on membership. It opposed ever going in.
And it is still there. Its choice of Deputy Speaker is a dynastic opponent of the EU, his father having voted against Maastricht. Every single one of its MPs recently voted for a real terms reduction in the British contribution to the EU Budget, joined by fewer Conservatives than there are Lib Dem MPs.
One third of its MPs voted to be chaired by John Cryer. Their three representatives on the National Executive Committee are all no friends of the EU, one of them having voted against every treaty since the first one.
Ed Balls is Shadow Chancellor. Jon Cruddas heads the Policy Review. The place to see and be seen for the very talented 2010 intake in the Morning Star Readers' and Supporters' Group. Any party with John Mills as its single largest donor, giving twice as much as Unite does, knows exactly on which side its bread is buttered.
But you will not be hearing or reading about any of these facts in any of the official media, a category which includes the grander blogs but not certain newspapers (one in particular, which I part-own). As I said, completely skewed against reality.
For example, the party that Professor Sked founded but now reviles is treated as if it were a major force because it recently garnered 7.5 per cent of the eligible vote in the least populous areas. It only has to lose a by-election and its defeated candidate is invited onto the Question Time panel.
There is a party which is actually going to have seats in the next Parliament, unlike Professor Sked's former vehicle, and which is already committed explicitly to the repatriation of industrial and regional policy, as well as at least implicitly to that of agriculture and fisheries.
It also has a range of economic policies, with more to come, that are simply incompatible with the EU's permanent, because fundamental, pursuit of everything that UKIP supporters could possibly want and more. It is exactly the EU's position, as it is exactly UKIP's position, that the only problem with British austerity is that it does not go far enough.
Labour kept Britain out of the euro. It provided three times as many votes against Maastricht as the Conservatives did, with the latter not including UKIP's rising star, Neil Hamilton, who voted in favour of Maastricht. It voted against the Single European Act, unlike Neil Hamilton.
It voted year on year against the Common Agricultural and Fisheries Policies between 1979 and 1997; again, Neil Hamilton never did so, not even once. It is the only party ever to have had a manifesto commitment to withdrawal, in 1983, when Neil Hamilton was elected against it. It held the only ever referendum on membership. It opposed ever going in.
And it is still there. Its choice of Deputy Speaker is a dynastic opponent of the EU, his father having voted against Maastricht. Every single one of its MPs recently voted for a real terms reduction in the British contribution to the EU Budget, joined by fewer Conservatives than there are Lib Dem MPs.
One third of its MPs voted to be chaired by John Cryer. Their three representatives on the National Executive Committee are all no friends of the EU, one of them having voted against every treaty since the first one.
Ed Balls is Shadow Chancellor. Jon Cruddas heads the Policy Review. The place to see and be seen for the very talented 2010 intake in the Morning Star Readers' and Supporters' Group. Any party with John Mills as its single largest donor, giving twice as much as Unite does, knows exactly on which side its bread is buttered.
But you will not be hearing or reading about any of these facts in any of the official media, a category which includes the grander blogs but not certain newspapers (one in particular, which I part-own). As I said, completely skewed against reality.
No comments:
Post a Comment