/* Exposing Ukip News: 2016 /* FIX FACEBOOK OG TAGS */ /* SHAREAHOLIC CODE */

19 November 2016

The problem with not opposing Brexit #BrexitShambles #Ukip #SingleMarket #Immigration

Time and time again we are told that we should stop moaning, get over it, and accept the result of the EU Referendum and waive away all those rights we have as EU citizens. We are told that the result of the referendum was the 'will of the people' and that 'democracy has spoken' and we are consistently attacked as being traitorous for standing up for what we believe in.

The problem with this is that we feel, as do many others, that we were bullied into a referendum by UKIP and their rowdy mob of rag tag fascists who insisted that if the referendum result had been 52%/48% against them, that it would be 'unfinished business'.

Certainly, whatever the people had voted you can be sure that Kippers & Eurosceptics (egged on and supported by the likes of extreme far right parties like the EDL & Britain First) would never have stopped moaning, and it seems that whatever had happened there would have been a rowdy resistance. They were threatening the same before.

Then of course there are the problems associated with the 2016 referendum and the behaviour of those on the far-right. The hate of foreigners and refugees in an era of post-truth news, and where social media campaigns are funded by rich donors and supported by right-wings newspapers such as the Daily Mail and Daily Express and the Sun whose owners don't even live in the UK, yet feel they have a right to commentate and sow seeds of discontent. UKIP did very well from the money that was ploughed into the campaign by the Daily Express owner and the likes of Arron Banks who all have vested interests in leaving the EU, and who care little about the economic and social impact as they will do just fine thank you very much.

What strikes us as particularly ironic and hypocritical is that a party whose sole aim was/is to be anti-EU is the very same party that been creaming off funds to pay for their staff and using it for electioneering purposes in the UK. In doing do they defrauding the system as well as the British tax-payer for their own gain and wages and expenses, and all the time influencing hearts and minds with their racist and xenophobic agenda to further their own machine of hate. The level of influence UKIP and the far right have had in the UK thanks to heavily funded social media campaigns has been far-reaching, and they have behaved appallingly as a party along the way, turning people against each other and trying to take us out of that very EU that funded them so well.

I hear many people, both on the remain and leave sides, saying we should respect the result of the referendum, when UKIP, Farage and co quite obviously would not have done. Those who attack us seem content to let UKIP do what they have done and take us out of the EU but also seem willing to ignore their behaviour and impact on the UK in not only bringing about this referendum, but also by using EU funds to try and demonise the EU and turn the British people against it, and then threaten and hold the country to ransom with threats of disorder and riots should they not get their way. They know exactly what they are doing, and it stinks to hell.

It's the scandal of the century. The way in which UKIP have got away with murder, almost, and left us in a state of turmoil and disarray, whilst they still cream off the funds that keeps them in pocket. Oh, and don't forget about their EU pensions which will keep many of those MEPs comfortable for years to come, while the people suffer the effects of their work.

The way UKIP have behaved in recent years is utterly shameful, the way they have turned the debate into a negative one taking the country back in time to a place many of us felt we'd left behind with the fascists of the past.

We will not give up so easily, and we will fight for our rights as EU citizens as those rights protect us from corruption in Governments of our own country and also guarantee us many hard-earned rights and benefits we will all lose as a country and people if we continue on this path to Brexit destruction.

"Again & again 1 side bows to the rules & to what’s fair-while the other focuses on the ruthless exercise of power”

How much longer are we going to stand by and watch while we let UKIP/The Tories and now Labour try and drag us out of the EU? What else can we do if we continue to play by the rules, and let UKIP get away with this? Surely, if UKIP have got issues with immigration, then why does the Government not do something about it, but destroying our relationship with the EU and taking us out of the single market? That is not the answer. After all, the majority of leave voters wanted to retain single market membership, They did not vote for a hard Brexit.

25 June 2016

Suzanne Evans Is Posting Propaganda and Spin On Facebook About Brexit And #EuRef #Ukip


Despite Nigel Farage openly admitting that the promised £350 million a week for the NHS was a “mistake”, UKIP and the leave camp continue to believe that the people of Britain are gullible and that they will continue to listen to their lies and propaganda.

We have recently come across a message from Suzanne Evans of UKIP where she describes the UK’s “first day of independence” in terms which can only be described as blatant propaganda and the lowest level of political spin.

Also same post here, not sure who wrote it. Presumably Suzanne.And of course, also printed in the Ukip Express, here.

She starts, “the FTSE 100 lost significant ground” in fact, it hit a seven year low, rallied a little, but still closed with significant losses.  Why does this effect you?  Do you have a pension fund? Well forget retiring. Since the Brexit fiasco the FTSE has lost £120 billion. It also lost £100 billion last Wednesday - to put that into perspective that is nearly 20 years contribution to the EU budget wiped off our economy. 

Ms. Evans goes on to say that the pound “rallied”. The pound has lost over 10% of its value in the last week. The exchange rate between the Pound and the Dollar is down to the same levels as 1985, it is now worth nearly the same as the Euro. Why is this bad? As the Leave camp always said, we import more than we export. You do the maths.

Things are only this good because the Bank of England has given some assurances by promising emergency funding of £250 billion. 

Ms. Evans then goes on to say that the our special relationship with the USA will endure. We assume she read this in the Daily Express, owned by a Brexit donor. However, a rather more objective news source, Reuters, makes it very clear that this relationship is under threat:

“The loss of the strongest pro-U.S. voice within the 28-nation bloc, as a result of the “Brexit” referendum, threatens to weaken Washington’s influence in European policymaking and embolden Russian President Vladimir Putin to further challenge the West, analysts and former diplomats say.”

This is very serious. This is more important than a trade deal with the UK and the US and the salvage of the UK’s failing economy, this is threatening the stability of the entire Western world.


Ms. Evans then goes on to say the French government has confirmed that the Touquet Agreement will remain in force. This is the bilateral agreement between France and the UK which ensures that the Jungle housing the Syrian refugees remains in Calais and does not end up in Dover. We can find no authority for this in the press anywhere. In fact, Xavier Bertrand, the President of Hauts-de-France region where Calais is located said “The English wanted to take back their freedom: they must take back their border”


President Juncker has indeed stated that the negotiations for Brexit will be orderly, however there are no guarantees that we will retain the close connections with our former EU partners that we have now. They are not happy at the referendum result. The European Parliament is demanding that the UK trigger Article 50 TFEU so that this fiasco can continue with some dignity. If you are surprised at this, don’t forget that in his 15 years in the European Parliament, Nigel Farage hardly made friends and influenced people. Many times he has brought our former EU partners to the limits of their patience; openly called them Communists and Nazis. They are hardly likely to have forgotten this when they enter these negotiations. It has also been pointed out that the UK government has only 12 Trade Negotiators, and at least 100 will be needed to pull of this negotiation deal. This is not going to be an easy thing to do in a hurry. However, do not blame our EU partners, these problems are purely the fault of our own Government’s complacency and Nigel Farage’s infantile propensity to insult “foreigners”.

Ms. Evans then goes on to describe how “a big bank” (no mention of which one) has said it will not be transferring jobs over to the EU. This is what we found in the press:


“You’re looking at 50,000 to 70,000 London finance jobs being moved overseas in the next 12 months,” says one consultant working with one of the top finance strategy firms in the City. “Jobs are going to be cut, and those cuts are going to start next week.”

Ms. Evans now goes on to talk about the CBI - sating that whilst they were previously against Brexit now they were fully on board. That is not how we interpret their statement. This sounded to us more like a word of warning and encouragement toward companies who were about to weather the worst economic storm they had ever had to face. Their statement also stresses the importance of the EU to our economy.

Even once we have left, the EU will continue to be our biggest trading partner, and the first destination for many companies when they start to export.

Finally, she states that several countries are interested in beginning bilateral talks with Britain. The only one we can find is Ghana.


To be more precise, this is not even a new trading deal. This is a renegotiation of an existing deal which was put in place via the EU. The only reason Ghana wants to talk to the UK bilaterally is that the UK is its largest trading partner within the EU.

Ms. Evans starts her statement with the words “A Prime Minister resigned” - This is the only accurate part of the entire statement.

We are amazed that after all the lies and propaganda spread throughout the referendum campaign, that UKIP would continue to try to dupe the British people. UKIP obviously believe that we are uneducated and gullible. This makes us extremely angry. The vote to leave has already left the UK economy in tatters, we dread to think what will become of it by the time we have negotiated our exit.

12 June 2016

Response To Left Leave’s Seven More “Myths" About The EU. #Ukip #LabourLeave #EuRef #Lexit

In response to this article, in which #LEXIT: the Left Leave Campaign chair ROBERT GRIFFITHS attempts to counters key arguments for EU membership

Myth 1.    The EU has brought peace in Europe for 50 years or more.

The Lexit argument is that peace has been maintained by anti-war feeling in the West and the Soviet policy of “peaceful co-existence”. Peace therefore cannot be attributed to the European Union.

The genesis of the EU can be found in the Schuman declaration.  Robert Schuman was the post-war French Foreign Minister.  His statement of 9th May 1950 outlines the primary objectives of what we now know as the European Union.  This is what he said about obtaining peace in Europe.

“World peace cannot be safeguarded without the making of creative efforts proportionate to the dangers which threaten it.”

He then detailed one of the key “creative efforts” that could bring about peace within a war torn and battered continent.

"The pooling of coal and steel production... will change the destinies of those regions which have long been devoted to the manufacture of munitions of war, of which they have been the most constant victims."

The idea in itself is simple.  We work together towards reconstruction and towards a stable situation that will encourage production and trade..  We trade with one another, because we are far less likely to try to destroy those nations we want to sell our products to.

Our final quote from the Schuman declaration is this:

"Europe will not be made all at once, or according to a single plan. It will be built through concrete achievements which first create a de facto solidarity."

Large objectives are hardly ever achieved by a single plan.  Peace in Europe can be attributed to a number of different factors; the formation of the United Nations and NATO have also been key to ensuring peace in Europe.  No doubt so has an anti-war feeling in the West and a desire to cooperate from Russia, especially after the dismantling of the Eastern Bloc in the 1980’s.  However, the impact of the European Union in establishing cooperation between nations, to a point where trade and economic growth can be attained and maintained cannot be dismissed. 

The undeniable fact is that no two EU Member States has ever gone to war with each other.  It also cannot be denied that wars have happened.  The Individual Nation States that are the members of the EU have used their autonomy in determining their own foreign policy to go to war just as the UK did with Iraq, however, this has never been a decision taken at EU level.

The United Kingdom is a permanent member of the UN Security Council, a member of NATO and a member of the European Union.  We could attribute all these factors to having ensured peace for our nation in the last 60 years.   Economic prosperity and stability cannot be achieved without peace between nations, economic cooperation between nations can ensure that peace.  This was the key ethos of Robert Schuman’s speech.  The EU cannot be sidelined as a contributing factor to the maintenance of peace within Europe.

Myth 2.   Many problems are international and so require a coordinated EU approach.

The Lexit argument is that international problems are larger than the EU.  The UK is already a member of a number of international initiatives (WHO, WTO, Unesco, ILO etc) so we don’t need to be involved in EU initiatives.  Furthermore, they see the EU as representing only large corporations and therefore undermining the efforts of the above mentioned international agencies.  Finally, as the UK is the 5th largest economy of the world, we will always have influence.

To take the last comment first.  Since the latest round of polls showing an advantage for Leave the pound has fallen, and £77 billion of investment has already left the country.  Nobody can guarantee that our economy will remain the 5th largest whether we remain or leave.  However, even the leave campaign has admitted that there will be an economic shock and a period of economic uncertainty will follow if we leave the EU  Therefore the argument that our standing in the world’s economy will remain the same cannot be guaranteed.

It is true that international problems are larger than the EU.  However, the EU as a collective provides over 50% of all global development aid, the EU is in fact, the world's leading donor in this area

After leaving the EU would the UK commit to a continuing its current level of funding?  Will the EU have to reduce this kind of funding if the UK pulls out?  How would this damage worldwide development projects in the future?  Who will ultimately suffer from this?  What would be consequences of this?   Maybe questions to ask yourself before casting your vote.

As to environmental initiatives, again, a global concern, but basic geography would lead one to assume that dealing with issues such as air and sea pollution would require cooperation with our immediate neighbours.  Let’s look at the UK fishing fleet.  Rather than trying to destroy our fish stocks, the limits put on the fishing industry have been put in place for reasons of ensuring that certain species do not become extinct from over fishing.  This is a long term approach to try to address mistakes made in the past.  The majority of our own problems stem in fact from the Cod War that took place between ourselves and Iceland prior to our EU membership.

As to further EU environmental initiatives, the UK is signed up to the EU Energy Union, with framework policies running to 2020, 2030 and 2050.  The final aim is to ensure EU energy independence - thus removing our need to rely on countries outside the EU for our energy supplies.  This will be achieved by commitments to the development of renewable energy. 

The UK is certainly not forced into joining these initiatives.  Please see below a link to a press release from 6th June 2016 regarding closer cooperation between the North Sea countries on the use of wind power.  This initiative looks into the use of space used in the North Sea for the wind turbines, better connectivity for supply etc.  Every North Sea Member State, and Norway - a non-Member State are involved.  The UK isn’t.  Obviously not the EU keeping us out.  Definitely a display of the current government’s non-commitment to renewable energy.

Myth 3: If Britain votes to leave the EU, it would be a victory for the political right. 

The Lexit argument is that our government and the CBI which both support Remain are only interested in big business and saving the financial services sector.  If we leave the current government will fall and the UK can promote polices that would favour investment in people not business.

It is true that the mainstream political right does indeed protect the interests of big business.  They are also keen to protect the City of London.  Unfortunately we have a Conservative government which was democratically elected and these are their priorities.  Secondly, since the decline of our manufacturing industries caused by Thatcherite policies our economy is heavily reliant on the City of London for creating money to drive the economy and to attract investment.  This investment is likely to fall if we leave the EU and the country has already seen £77 billion in investment leave the country as a result of polls showing a lead for leave.

A vote for withdrawal may well bring down Cameron and Osborne, but this is not a general election, and the referendum is not about the current government, it is about our continued membership of the European Union, the implications thereof, and what would be lost or gained as a result of leaving. or staying.

We could indeed promote policies at home and abroad that would put people first.  However, to do that we would need to put the appropriate government in place.  There is no guarantee that a leave vote will trigger a General Election.  Even if it does there is no guarantee that we would end up with a government that has the political will to do this.  There is also no guarantee that after leaving the EU we would even have an economy capable of guaranteeing policies favouring investment in people and continued influence on the world stage.

We could end up with a Labour government after a leave vote with a sufficient majority to protect our rights as workers and citizens without the protection of EU law, but for how long?  If voted out we could be back to Tory policies again in 5 years.

After a leave vote we could also just as easily inherit a government composed of Michael Gove, Ian Duncan Smith and Boris Johnson.  Unfettered and with no protection from EU law, this troika could mean the complete loss of many of the rights as workers and even as human beings that we currently take for granted.

Myth 4. The EU can be reformed to serve the interests of the people:

The Lexit argument is that the powers of the EU can only be changed by Treaty changes which have to be unanimously agreed on in the Council of Ministers.  They claim that the Treaties contain pro-austerity policies which limit government investment in companies, they claim that alleviating these limitations would lead to greater economic investment in key domestic markets.

After an extensive search online, we cannot find a specific Treaty Article which imposes austerity measures on member states within the EU.  It is assumed that Lexit are referring to this.

The EU Treaty has stipulated what they consider to be an “excessive budget deficit”.  Trading between member states does indeed mean greater independency upon each other’s economies.  What do we have to gain if our trading partners have economic difficulties?  How can we sell to a country with no money, or where high unemployment leads to a reduction in demand?  In any case, why would we want to be free to run up a budget deficit?  surely this is counter productive?

Furthermore, the Treaty does contain specific provisions for tackling poverty and social exclusion within the EU. According to Article 9, “In defining and implementing its policies and activities, the Union shall take into account requirements linked to the promotion of a high level of employment, the guarantee of adequate social protection, the fight against social exclusion, and a high level of education, training and protection of human health.” Moreover, Article 3 clearly stipulates that the Union should “combat social exclusion and discrimination, and shall promote social justice and protection.”

Furthermore, Article 208 TFEU stipulates the following:

“The Union shall take account of the objectives of development cooperation in the policies that it implements which are likely to affect developing countries.”

All very well for citizens outside the EU - what about our own citizens?

This site does admit that there is “no EU plan on how to shield poor citizens in the EU from the consequences of austerity measures, nor any EU policy on protecting social sectors in Europe.”

However, since identifying this problem initiatives have been put in place to try to alleviate the impact on EU citizens.

For example, youth employment, including Erasmus+ which extends learning opportunities for EU students to include apprenticeships, which can be taken in any EU member state.

For an indication on how this has been attributed in the UK - see here.

Another example on how this has helped specific areas in the UK.

It could be said that this our money and that the UK could fund this anyway.  However, see our comments under myth 3 - we would need a government in place with the political will to do this.


To move on, what about Lexit’s comments on State Aid?

State Aid is part of the body of EU law relating to competition.  EU competition law is run with the primary objective of serving EU consumers.  By ensuring a market where companies compete with one another the consumer is guaranteed lower prices and better products.

The EU, in conjunction with the National Competition Authorities based in each Member State deal with competition law on a variety of levels.  For example, responsibilities of dominant undertakings, investigating and dismantling cartels and cartel activity, monitoring mergers to alleviate barriers to entry for smaller companies and start ups and finally they monitor state aid.

Lexit is correct, State Aid is illegal under EU competition law.  The rationale is that providing government funding to companies gives them an unfair competitive advantage on the market.  They are not run efficiently as they have no motivation to ensure improved products.  State aid also favours richer countries on the global market as they can afford to fund failing companies.

However, State Aid is allowed under certain circumstances.  For example, The Royal Bank of Scotland received state aid from the UK government.  Why did the EU allow this?  Because the alternative would have meant small investors (the small citizens such as you and I) losing their life savings, and maybe going to a cashpoint machine and not being able to withdraw money from their account.  The result, mass panic and a possible domino effect on the rest of the financial services sector.  A real disaster for the United Kingdom, therefore it was allowed under EU law.

As a little aside, the financial services sector was investigated by the EU.  A cartel was uncovered regarding the fixing of the Inter Bank Lending Rate in three currencies (Libor, Eurbior and Yen).  The fine imposed by the EU in 2013 on the banks for Euribor and Yen was €1.71 billion.  This money went directly into the EU budget and came off the EU taxpayer’s bill for funding the EU.

State Aid can also be allowed for what is considered to be a “service of general economic interest”  “SGEI” - for example, a privately owned bus company finds it inefficient to run a bus route to a very isolated area, this can be funded by a government in order to ensure that transport in this area is assured.
TATA steel has been in the news recently, the criticism being that the government cannot save the industry with state aid as it is forbidden by the EU.  First of all, we have a conservative government which would be against state aid by default.  Secondly, state aid can be given to steel industries if it encourages efficiency.  Some EU Member States have done this, mainly through reducing energy prices by encouraging switches to renewable energy.  Our government just does not have the political will to do this.  It doesn’t seem to like renewable energy anyway.  The EU is also desperate to apply anti-dumping measures on China to prevent them from dumping cheap steal on the EU market.  Again this has been held up by our own government.

The case for Anti-dumping measures is very high.  Personally, I would not want to buy Chinese steel as their workers are exploited and do not enjoy the same levels of social protection and human rights laws as we do.  If we can be independent in our supply within the EU, then we can exert influence on places such as China.  We do not want cheap products at any price.  Ensure protection to your workers and maybe we will consider buying from you.  Ensure the use of renewable energy policies in your production and maybe we will buy from you.

Can the UK do this from outside the EU?  Another question to ask yourself before voting.

Finally, can the EU be reformed?  with the correct Member State governments, certainly.  There has to be a political will to do that.  This only happens if you, the citizens, vote for governments who wish to do this.  Ultimately the EU is the sum of its parts, it is an assemblage of independent Nation States.

Myth 5.  Scotland and Wales benefit from EU funds and British withdrawal would lead to the break-up of the United Kingdom.

The Lexit argument is that the money supplied is insignificant compared to what comes from central government, and that Scotland cannot afford to leave the United Kingdom.  Free from EU rules on public procurement local government can award larger contracts to local suppliers.

Why only British withdrawal?  It is the United Kingdom that is a member of the EU, not Great Britain.  Why does Lexit not want to touch on the thorny issue of Northern Ireland?  Could we please not forget the Labout MP that put the Good Friday Agreement in motion despite being extremely ill at the time.  It has been put forward that leaving the EU could lead to the demise of the Good Friday Agreement, this would be an insult to Mo Mowlam’s memory.

To return to the original argument, it is not just Wales and Scotland that receive EU funding.  EU funding is available to the whole of the United Kingdom.  Scotland and Wales received most of the funding during the 1980’s as these areas were considered by the rest of the EU as needing regeneration.  This was during the Thatcher era - a Conservative government.  We now have another Conservative government that has little interest in regeneration projects that fall outside London and Home Counties and which has actively favoured their own constituencies with government funding.

This has also been doing the rounds on Facebook - it shows how much Charities could suffer from a withdrawal from the EU - and also demonstrates how much the poor and vulnerable are dependent upon charities, which are in turn dependent upon EU funding:

“Wave goodbye to local authority and charity services you thought the government pays for, if you vote to Leave the EU. The government does not and will not pay for services you currently take for granted and you probably think are paid for by the government - the government cut funding in 2010 and repeatedly since then, forcing councils, schools and lots of other organisations to become charities in order to compete for funding from the lottery and from the major EU funding streams. I know because I write the funding applications! Goodbye services for children, disabled people, hospitals, the elderly, community transport, adult education, libraries, theatres and parks all paid for by the ESF. Goodbye town centre rejuvenation projects, small businesses, inland waterways and transport all paid for by the ERDF. And hello massive hikes in council tax and hello fracking companies and nuclear power stations on your doorstep, massive corporate building projects in the countryside and privatisation of schools as your council makes desperate attempts to make up the shortfall.
Even the National Institute of Statistics has openly published a statement to say that the Leave campaign are lying about the figures they're using. Please wake up to the social impact of leaving the EU and vote with your conscience not your pride.”

As a last interjection on ESF funding, the EU requires match funding before they will provide money for projects.  Every EU member state’s government puts this up themselves.  It makes sense after all - it is double your money surely?  However, the UK government provides no match funding.  Charities, start ups, cultural projects from the UK have to secure match funding from the private sector or use national lottery money. 

Scotland and Wales may leave the UK.  This is a real concern.  Scotland only recently had their own referendum on continued membership of the UK - the vote was extremely close and it has shown huge divisions between in particular England and Scotland on their visions for the future.  Funnily enough, Lexit is using the same arguments for Scotland to remain in the UK as Remain is using for the UK remaining in the EU.  Scotland has no desire to be an independent nation and a member of the EU sitting next door to a country that is not an EU member state.  This could become particularly tricky if Scotland adopts the Euro.  Whatever Scotland decides to do should there be a vote for leave, this will seriously damage any good will, such as it is, within the Union as a whole.  Different sections seem to want different things for their future and this is hardly a healthy situation on which to move forward as a nation.

Finally, public procurement rules are in place to ensure transparency, decrease the risk of anti-competitive practices and prevent corruption.  Removing public procurement rules will not necessarily result in money being diverted into projects for the greater good.  It may well lead to money being diverted for the pet projects of corrupt politicians only intent on lining their own pockets, and to the detriment of struggling start ups and small businesses.

Myth 6:  Democracy and Human Rights will be threatened if Britain leaves the EU.

Lexit seems to run out of steam here.  Again, the Member State quoted is wrong, it is the United Kingdom which is a member, not Great Britain.  Their argument is that there is Tory hostility towards the ECHR.  The ECHR has nothing to do with the EU.  They also say that we need to defend Human Rights whether within the EU or not.

I think there is full agreement here.  Human Rights should be defended no matter what.  The ECHR is indeed separate from the EU.  However, since enlargement of the EU in 2004, adherence to the ECHR has become a condition of membership, it would be extremely difficult to leave the ECHR whilst a member of the EU.  Something Lexit does not seems to want to touch on.

It is also true that the Tories wish to scrap the Human Rights Act 1998.  This it can do whilst remaining in the EU, it is our own law, put in place by the last Labour government, and which incorporates the ECHR into UK law rather than having to rely on common law.  However, even with the HR Act 1998 scrapped we would still have the ECHR to fall back on - in fact the EU does not stop us adopting our own Bill of Rights if we so wish, however, it would have to be in line with the ECHR.

Lexit has completely ignored the European Charter on Fundamental Rights.

The provisions of the Charter are addressed to:
    •    the institutions and bodies of the EU with due regard for the principle of subsidiarity; and
    •    the national authorities only when they are implementing EU law.

The Charter ensures that Member States apply the ethos of the EU on the principles of equality of treatment and subsidiarity whenever it enacts EU law.  This ethos is also applied in all implementing regulations used by the EU institutions.

Lexit is also forgetting the protection provided by EU law to the Directives contained within the social chapter.  These directives are far reaching and deal with equality in the workplace and access to training and education.  They forbid discrimination on the grounds of gender, sexual orientation, religion and race.  They also contain rights to maternity pay, maternity leave, minimum paid vacation, health and safety regulations and also make sexual harassment in the workplace illegal.

It cannot be said that the EU is against Human Rights.  The principal of equality was enshrined in the original Treaty of Rome and it has been one of the cornerstones of the EU throughout its history.  Lexit  simply cannot imply that our human rights are better protected once outside the EU.

Myth 7:  There is no realistic alternative of EU membership.

The Lexit argument is that we already have bilateral agreements in place, and that we can join the European Free Trade Agreement and via that the European Economic Area.  We can also trade freely with BRICS and with the 53 Commonwealth nations.

From the above, it would appear that Lexit wish for the UK to have a Swiss or Norwegian style agreement with the EU.  Switzerland is a member of EFTA.  Norway is a member of EFTA and the EEA.  Both countries pay into the EU budget, both countries have free movement and they are both members of Schengen - so they have no border control.  Nether country has MEPs representing their nations in the European Parliament, nor do they attend meetings of the Council of Ministers.  They do have to adhere to the rules regarding trade and their products and packaging have to be in line with EU rules.  They are also part of the Social Chapter, and they have to comply with these rules as well.  They have no say in how these rules are developed. 

Why is this a better deal than the one we have now?  How does this make our situation more democratic?

As to BRICS, we already trade with them bilaterally.  Germany trades with them quite extensively on a bilateral basis.  As to the Commonwealth - do they want to trade with us?  What are they going to buy?  Do they have the means to purchase? Consider this video when thinking about the 'Swiss' model, a reply to Brexit the Movie.

Furthermore, surely again, simple geography implies that trading favourably with your neighbours is more pragmatic, especially when those neighbouring countries are wealthy.  Why would poorer countries be prepared to pay extra for our goods so that they can be transported, particularly when they will be subject to WTO trading tariffs?

We invite an open response from the #Lexit #VoteLeave campaign to our questions and ask them to seriously consider the implications of what they are campaigning for. 

10 June 2016

This Is Doing The Rounds On Facebook, But What Is The Truth? #Ukip #WorkersRights #EuRef

This image is being shared round by Left #Lexit campaign taken (it would seem) from info being shared by far right on Facebook.

What to make of it?

Well, we considered the following:

The problem with all this is that the Lexit campaign plays straight into the hands of UKIP, and in the event of a Brexit helped by a Lexit campaign, we will find ourselves facing a Tory/Ukip govt and lose all the benefits of EU membership. These benefits are far reaching, and will impact on all of us. It will be an incredibly messy divorce and (without sounding too pessimistic) it could be very damaging to the UK economy, and put many jobs at risk. Not to mention the huge cost of a Brexit, when we consider all the costs of overhauling our legal framework, and renegotiating new trade deals. For me and many people on the left we are facing a difficult decision on 23rd June. 

But what to make of the information we are faced with about workers rights?  This covers point one. We need to remember that with 'Paid holiday leave' it is the minimum only that is set by the EU (same goes for maternity leave, maternity pay, etc) - the EU doesn't stop individual nations setting a higher minimum if they want to, and this is a strong argument against the claim that the EU doesn't allow individual countries to make their own laws. Therefore, this infographic shows that we DO make our own laws, and finally puts to rest that old lie from UKIP that we don't. 

But there is a lot of misinformation in it. The claim that the UK has a 'minimum wage' deftly sidesteps the fact that we do not have one of the highest minimum wages in the EU. The original text from which the above infographic is taken states that 'we have one of the highest minimum wages in the world'.  We may have one of the highest in the world, but not Europe. As UKIP likes to keep reminding us, the UK is the 5th largest economy in the world, so why would we not have one of the highest minimum wages in the world?

Also we need to remember the fact that one of the two major parties of government in the UK opposed the existence of any minimum wage at all until the late 1990s! I'm not sure what an "EU minimum wage" would involve, but my understanding is that EU nations are required to have a minimum wage, even if it's just one they set for themselves. It would be pretty hard to impose an EU-wide minimum wage, for obvious reasons. It's an unfeasible proposition since the member states economies are so different.

The point about 'No minimum maternity pay' is simply not true. Women on maternity leave are entitled to an allowance during the period of leave at a rate at least equivalent to sick pay. In reality UK maternity pay is the 3rd lowest in Europe, only Greece and Luxembourg are lower. 

As for 'Equal pay', our membership of the EU has strengthened and influenced by EU law.  The 1970's Equal Pay Act paved the way for the UK's entry to the European Community, helping to bring it towards conformity with Article 141 of the Treaty of Rome, which says that 'each Member State shall ensure that the principle of equal pay for male and female workers for equal work or work of equal value is applied.'

Furthermore, there was no right to a MINIMUM paid holiday entitlement in the UK before the EU Working Time Directive was introduced in 1993, the Tory government at the time tried to stop the EU introducing it, it was put into UK law in 1998. It was increased to '5.6 weeks' by Labour because some employers were counting Bank Holidays as part of the 4 weeks. The rights of agency workers and part-timers are also protected under EU law.

It's important to remember that these laws are protected and guaranteed by the EU. 
None of these things are under threat by remaining in the EU, but how safe are new rules like these if we leave?

Without the EU even the minimum can be taken away. Do we want to be like the US with no maternity leave or pay and no sick leave or paid vacation? Do we trust the Tories and Ukip to protect our working rights?

Finally, it is also interesting to note this, which worries us immensely. Who is actually funding the Labour Leave campaign?

Vote wisely, don't be fooled by the spin.

30 April 2016

Are We Witnessing The Death Of Britain First ?

The London Mayoral Election has been for Britain First, in Paul Golding's own words, a 'disaster'.

Hey, Golding, we could have told you that in advance. Because it always is.

And it's been nicely summed up in this video from The Independent. Image links to the original post. give it a watch.

29 April 2016

The Curious Case Of #Ukip's Rosie Ward

As with many of UKIP’s ‘bright young things’, Rosaline ‘Rosie’ Ward’s rise up the UKIP ranks is a tale of back stabbings and cover-ups. It's the way, in Ukip.

First picked up at a UKIP ‘luncheon’ by outed anti-Semite Stuart Guppy, she was quickly passed around to UKIP Councillor Harry Blakeley, who in turn groomed her for a meteoric climb up UKIP’s greasy pole - which concluded in a rather cushy job in the European Parliament, from all reports doing very little.

Cornwall Councillor Harry Blakeley
promotes Rosie Ward’s rise.
[Click for email detail].ption
Blakeley was 69 at the time and a married County Councillor,” explains a former branch officer who has since quit the party.

He was often seen driving around with her and soon engineered her appointment as Branch Chairman. He also touted her to Nigel personally and attempted to have her employed as YI (UKIP’s youth movement) Press Manager."

“The fact she was [at 16] younger than his grandchildren didn’t seem to bother him; but a lot of us felt quite uneasy about their relationship. Our parliamentary candidate once commented that he thought Blakeley was 'infatuated' with her.”

Indeed, whenever his young protégé was criticised, Blakeley would attack with ferocity, ‘denouncing’ members and the public alike. For the aging Cornwall Councillor, Ward could do no wrong.

So when local patrons found evidence of BNP affiliated articles, authored under her name on Nick Griffin ally, Jack Buckby’s Culturalist website, Blakeley lied to members to get her off the hook.

Steve Crowther, UKIP National Chairman, also weighed in by officially telling concerned staff that he had “concluded that for a 16-year-old it was a mistake which should be acknowledged but should not terminate her political involvement.”

Clearly many in UKIP were prepared to look the other way and continue to promote the young woman in the public eye.

Cornwall Councillor Harry Blakeley
attacks members and officials for
raising concerns about Ward’s BNP links
[Click for email details]
Ward’s 'management' of the Camborne & Redruth branch was reportedly “ineffectual”, and she soon became embroiled in a public scandal after her infamous ‘drugs party’ was reported by the national press.

As always Councillor Blakeley was there to save the day and her mandate was reaffirmed.

UKIP soon entered the planning stage for the 2015 general election, and with Camborne & Redruth listed as their third highest target seat UKIP Chairman Steve Crowther was confident that an 18-year-old with no experience was fit to lead the campaign.

Rosie Ward wrote for BNP insider
Jack Buckby here with Nick Griffin
"Ward should have never been given that level of responsibility at her age,” comments a former UKIP colleague.

“Putting someone so young into a public position under scrutiny like that, especially when it is UKIP is very irresponsible; but Blakeley refused to entertain any suggestions otherwise. He had his own agenda to keep promoting her and that is exactly what he did.”

“Pointing out that she was making repeated gaffes and ruining her own reputation was seen by Blakeley as ‘unfair criticism’. He even started ghost writing offensive internal letters and asking her to send them out under her name. He should be ashamed of himself.”

Issues came to a head when Camborne & Redruth’s candidate was arrested and charged for animal cruelty. Ward took the wise decision to use this incident to resign from her role. The new candidate, Bob Smith, banned the young ‘kipper’ from any activity in the campaign due to her BNP affiliations; including a keynote speech she was due to give at the YI Conference; much to the chagrin of her replacement ... the ever present Councillor Blakeley.

According to comments from a former Camborne and Redruth branch Chairman posted on an internet blog, Ward was told to leak information about the election campaign; including sensitive information about party leader Nigel Farage. This, once again at the behest of Harry Blakeley.

Ward listed as Intern at EFDD
After several months’ inactivity Rosie Ward was interviewed for a position in UKIP’s Brussels office. We are told that the interviewing official was in possession of a ‘large dossier’, which included information about her links to the BNP and articles written for Culturalist, plus negative social media posts criticising her constituency candidate and other party colleagues.

(Ward has since worked hard to remove all references to her BNP work, but caches and links remain active)

“UKIP member and right wing individual”
Ward joins a BNP affiliated site
However, for reasons unknown, UKIP’s European level staff, including MEPs, decided to ignore the evidence - and BNP affiliation - and offer the YI member a three month paid intern contract.

What Ward’s duties amounted to at the European Parliament have never been specified, but we’re told that she was “taken under the wing” of senior UKIP advisor, Anthony Brown; who immediately began posting her articles on his personal website.

“Nobody really knew why she was there or what she was doing,” remarks a former colleague. “Apart from taking several coffee breaks a day there didn’t seem to be much output. The main thing I recall was her posting nonsense on social media, and that her housing situation was compromised for much of her stay and she did the rounds asking colleagues for a thousand Euros to pay her deposit.”

Rosie Ward, now 19, has since quit social media and we are told no longer has involvement with the party - although she has been heavily featured in posts by the Leave.EU Campaign.

Ward featured in a
'Students For Britain'
'Brexit' post.
While her age is a factor, remember UKIP Councillors and even their National Chairman were happy to put this young woman in a high profile public role and use her for their own ends.

Perhaps her involvement with the BNP can be seen as naivete, but it proves once again that UKIP are happy to overlook such affiliations - so long as it helps their cause.

This post is less about Rosie Ward and more about how Ukip, a party dominated by middle-aged males, jumped at the chance of a photogenic token female future candidate, regardless of skills or knowledge. So much so that her BNP history was casually, effortlessly air-brushed away as a minor inconvenience.

We understand that although Ward has been 'off radar a bit' recently, this is more due to her studies than any other factor.

We expect her to resurface at some time, branded, polished and with a whitewashed history.

Stay tuned.

11 April 2016

The #Ukip Brussels Shuffle - 'Nazi' Storch IN, Ethnic Minority Advisor Duroch OUT

Ukip's Party in the EU, EFDD, relies on it's cross-nation, cross-party make-up for EU funding. So what does Farage do when that's under threat?

We've already seen before how a Polish Neo-Nazi was hurriedly 'drafted in' to make up the numbers when EFDD funding was under threat. Seems Ukip are quite happy - very happy, in fact - to bring in Neo Nazis and Extremists - as long as they guarantee the future of the EU cash.

At the same time, what do Ukip do when one of their own employees, an ethnic minority, has factually based complaints of witnessed and verified racial harassment?

Well, if you're Ukip, you sack him, of course.

Countess Von Storch, from a Nazi Family.
Farage's new best friend.
UKIP have reaffirmed their racist credentials by dispensing of the services of the key ethnic minority advisor who blew the whistle on racist intolerance within the EFDD while at the same time recruiting German MEP Countess Beatrix Von Storch from the very far-right Alternative fur Deutschland (AfD) party into their EU Parliament political group.

But UKIP don’t do half measures, and true to form Farage’s rabble lurched into yet another social media racism storm as a key activist involved in their Scottish manifesto launch was pictured in full ‘blackface’ make-up.

Twenty-four hours which even by UKIP standards, will take some beating.

Storch, one of two AfD representative at European level is reported to have been ‘asked to leave’ (read: 'kicked out') the Tory led ECR group after “tensions” emerged as a result of the German party’s hard line on immigration. This is not news to Storch, who entire family history for generations has been Nazi to the core.

In a parting shot, AfD accused Conservative MEP Syed Kamal (who Farage claims he wants to work with in the Brexit referendum) of “excluding” their delegation from committees and releasing “untruthful statements” via the ECR press office.

Tensions came to a head within the ECR after the German far-right party, which has capitalised on negative reactions to Angela Merkel’s refugee policy, made statements suggesting border guards should shoot women and children attempting to enter Germany illegally. It is reported that Nigel Farage’s team were quick to seize the chance to recruit AFD, brushing aside concerns about their “strong rhetoric”.

AfDs defection to the EFDD will no doubt help to assuage fears of another group collapse, as the Eurosceptic grouping now has an extra national delegation to strengthen it and bring the number of individual national parties to 8. (European Parliament groups require a minimum of 7 nationalities to qualify for the lucrative funding.)

Sources inside the European Parliament tell us that EFDD’s Dariuz Sobkow and Hermann Kellyboth named in an official investigation for racism and intolerance, were “instrumental” in orchestrating the recruitment of AfD this week. So it comes as no surprise that the far-right alliance has taken this chance to remove British Indian advisor, Sarinder Joshua Duroch, from his job.

Our insiders tell us that Glaswegian Duroch, who was on official European Parliament sick leave as a result of stress linked to racial bullying, reported back to his boss, Pierre Vaugier, only to be informed he was “no longer employed by EFDD/UKIP”. It appears that the party used a procedural loophole to end his tenure, by offering then quickly withdrawing a contract extension offer before he could respond.
“As far as we are aware Mr Duroch was sent a new contract by internal mail, but as he was not present to sign it EFDD withdrew the offer,” said a European Parliament source who asked not to be named. 
“They knew he [Duroch] had been ordered by the EU Parliament medical service not to attend the office so they decided to capitalise on it by hiding behind an obscure procedure. 
“It’s a really dirty trick, but what else can you expect from racists and neo-Nazis, it’s nothing they haven’t done before.”
Duroch, who was called “untermench” by fellow EFDD advisor, Carl Joel Ankar, had become a “problem” for EFDD/UKIP over the past six months. After his official complaint regarding racism and intolerance was passed onto the European Parliament authorities it caused the Swedish Democrats to threaten to leave the group, jeopardising UKIP’s much needed £5.6m tax-payer funding.

Parliamentary authorities are reportedly in the final stages of deliberation before making their recommendations to EFDD/UKIP on the basis of the complaints and accompanying statements, however, rather than wait, we’re told the “highest levels” of UKIP ordered their Brussels based staff to remove Duroch “by any legitimate means”. By 'highest levels' - read 'Farage'.

Recruiting their new German ally was the only ‘positive’ UKIP are able to take from this week. Their Scottish manifesto launch has already been overshadowed by the publication of images showing former candidate, Jack Neil, wearing ‘blackface’ make-up and a clown nose. Something which is totally unacceptable and would constitute an instant expulsion from a legitimate party.

Jack Neill, racially sensitive chap that he is.
The excuse this time was “it is something one does in their spare time”. Well, given that it is UKIP, it’s probably true, after all this is the party that recruited MEP Bill Etheridge after he posed with a gollywog and was suspended by the Tories.  So, Duroch has been ‘sacked’ for reporting racism, and we doubt that Neil will suffer the same fate.

Ukip truly have excelled themselves this week.

Expelling an ethnic minority for refusing to accept racism;
Not expelling a high-profile member for racism;
And recruiting a woman who's known only for her neo-Nazi views.

You could also point to this 24 hour period and state, genuinely ...

This. Is. Ukip.

Full Collapse Of Entire #Ukip Cornwall As Another Councillor Quits

Cornwall might be on the periphery of the UK, but when it comes to UKIP it is central to their plans - and for those of us who keep tabs, an interesting barometer of UKIP fortunes. ‘Kipper’ success in the Duchy was at one time promoted heavily by the party, after it ‘won’ the 2014 EU elections with 37% of the vote in the county, it also returned the party six seats in 2013’s local elections.

Cornwall: Lots of elderly retirees, and by the sea. Perfect Ukip territory, you'd think.
The county has a unitary authority council running it, and there is high support for a Cornish assembly that would maximise devolved powers replacing the existing system, and although UKIP are against it, at one time they conceivably could have won seats in the proposed ‘parliament’.

It’s also one of just two UK regions (along with South Wales) in receipt of generous European Regional Development Funding (ERDF) worth around £500m over six years. This money has been used to fund infrastructure and education, however, UKIP wish to do away with it and despite claims they would replace it we’re yet to see any costed, serious, plans.

With the news that UKIP Cornwall Councillor Mark Hicks has quit, the party’s local representatives have fallen to just two, from the original six. We have already covered the situation with racism and anti-Semitism in our previous articles, and with UKIP’s utter unprofessionalism and repeated gaffes in Cornwall we feel they are totally unelectable. This should be a warning for anybody considering voting for UKIP as their local representative.

Here is our run down of UKIP’s Cornish Council failures. 

MICHAEL KEOGH – Elected to a ward in the Falmouth and Truro area, Keogh became the first of the six to quit just months after the election. No official explanation from UKIP was given but rumours circulated about his health issues, which we are told were legitimate.

VIV LEWIS – Lewis claimed he was a paper candidate who just happened to get elected (by 12 votes) and in his mid-eighties when he came to office. Immediately involved in public bout of racism, he claimed he couldn’t be racist because he had “been to the West Indies on holiday”.  He resigned in 2015 and his seat was won by Labour. Mr Lewis passed away in January of this year.

HARRY BLAKELEY – Blakeley a former brewery manager resigned from his seat just weeks after the general election, triggering a by-election at additional cost to the tax-payer. His tenure as a Cornwall Councillor was marred by several embarrassing gaffes (full blog post on them soon) including illegally allowing travellers onto private land, and a string of very strange episodes involving his ‘protégé’ the notorious Cornish BNP activist, Rosie Ward.

MARK HICKS – A “strange individual” who we are told was “never seen” at UKIP events and functions. Turned up for council votes but did nothing else of note. We’re also told Hick’s “goes everywhere with his parents”. He stood down suddenly citing “personal reasons" using a facebook message to write to the leader of Cornwall Council.

DEREK ELLIOTT – We’re told Elliott is a “solid councillor and a good chap”. A 2010 PPC who had a good profile in his constituency, he was pushed aside for ‘big draw’ Bob Smith, a personal friend of Nigel Farage for the Camborne/Redruth target seat. Still remains a Cornwall Councillor but we are told he won’t be running again in 2017.

STEPHANIE McWILLIAMS – Long term UKIP insider and former party health spokeswoman who has done the rounds on regional and county committees. Led the council election campaign on a pledge to oppose house building, but then voted for a 45’000 increase anyway. A lame duck since the housing vote, McWilliams was also involved in the anti-Semitic cover up in St Ives (see our previous articles) which caused donors to withdraw £100k in funding and support. We’re are also told she “did nothing” to support her general election candidate. She has since resigned her chairmanship of South East Cornwall and does not plan to seek re-election in 2017.

Cornwall - a little microcosm of how Ukip works.

7 April 2016

A Letter To Douglas Carswell Of #Ukip

Dear Mr Carswell,

Douglas. Dougie. Mate!

So, how are things, hmm? Good. Listen, we've been thinking.

You know all those reasons you gave for leaving the Tories and joining Ukip?

We've just reviewed... and you've achieved all of those.

  • A EU Referendum? Check.
  • Freedom to speak on Brexit? Check.
  • A shed load of publicity? Check.
  • On TV a lot more? Check.
You've done well ! Really well.

So ... isn't it time you went home, now?

You see, everyone knows you've always been a Tory, really. You've voted constantly in Parliament with them, almost always against Ukip's agenda. So nothing very much has changed in that regard.

But you gave Ukip a legitimacy that you're probably regretting right now. It probably seemed a good idea at the time. You were unknown outside Clacton. Or even in Clacton.

But since day 1, you've never really been accepted, have you? Tories hated you for being Ukip. Ukip hated you for being still a Tory. You freely accepted being the 'acceptable face' of a Party of Hate, telling yourself, every day, "It's all for Brexit".

Thing is, Ukip have now officially disowned you. They no longer need you, or want you. Nigel says he barely remembers who you are. Party members abuse you constantly. And you're are a leading light in the Brexit Group which is a rival to Ukip's own, so you don't need them either.

Now you've got what you wanted, isn't it time you put your coat on, gave Paul Nuttall the finger (metaphorically, please) and headed back?

Is there any benefit, at all, to staying?

You wouldn't lose out financially - but Nigel would. Can't you just imagine the look on his face?

In happier times

Now consider this: The one thing holding back your Brexit dream in the next 80 days is probably the uncontrolled antics of Ukip. Nigel, the long time cheerleader for EU Exit, his 'Cash Daddy' Arron Banks, and his website scrawler, Kassam at Breitbart, are all fixated on bringing you down, as well as Suzanne. Not really a happy family, are you?

Frankly, you probably stand more chance of Brexit if you cut the ties with the clowns, and announce it publicly soon.

Oh, yeah, one last thing: Suzanne phoned, she wants to go with you.

Best to the wife and kids.


4 April 2016

Ukip, Brexit - And The NHS. 200 Leading Medical Experts Speak Out

Ukip recently pushed heavily the anti EU stance of Cancer Specialist Professor Angus Dalgleish, Principal of the Cancer Vaccine Institute. Specialist in cancer immunology and HIV/Aids research.

Dalgleigh - not quite what he seems.
He said:
"The NHS is on its knees and 'could collapse completely' because of immigrants from the EU that we are legally obliged to treat."
Ukip even claimed he was 'speaking for the NHS professionals'.

Sure, we'd listen to him for his views on Cancer. But on the NHS, not so much.

While an estimated 52,000 came here for treatment, about 63,000 Brits went abroad. To say nothing, of course, of the 11% of NHS staff and 26% of doctors who are non-British.

What Ukip didn't tell you: He's a member of Ukip.

What Ukip didn't tell you: He stood as a Candidate for Ukip in the last General Election in the London borough of Sutton and Cheam.

28 March 2016

#Ukip Elected Official : "Anyone But A Muslim"

Just 4 words, that's all.

But 4 words which highlight both a curse - and an opportunity - for Ukip.

The comment was made on Facebook by Sarah Larkins, Councillor and Deputy Mayor of Ramsgate (yet another seaside town in the partial grip of Ukip. What is it with beaches?) in reference to Sadiq Khan, Mayoral Candidate for Ukip.

Sarah Larkins
By her comment we can reasonably deduce that she thinks it matters not (or she doesn't care) who becomes Mayor of London, as long as that person does not follow the faith of Islam.

A clearer, more unequivocal example of Islamic Hatred from a Ukip Official we can scarce recall.

Peter Whittle, Ukip Candidate for same, has yet to comment on the Islamic Hatred of his colleague - but then, no change there. He also refuses to comment on the Gay Hate of his other colleague, Alan Craig.

Of course, the level of Hate against Islam and Muslims on Social Media from Ukip supporters, followers and voters is "a torrent, a flood, a storm" (all favourite Ukip words).

Peter Whittle
'No comment'
This is the curse of Ukip - that their core support does not hold back from their hatred online. Ukip, of course, claim (often, because it happens often) that this is out of their control, although they do nothing to condemn it.

But an elected official (and of course a party member) is very much in their control. This is a real opportunity for Ukip to show that they do (as they claim) root out the Hate in their party.


Even while writing this post, word came through that Ukip have deemed this comment as acceptable. They stated that:
".. The party would not be disciplining the councillor over the Facebook post." 
Further proof, if any were required, that Ukip refuse to face up to the Hate that so often wears a purple rosette.

Surprising even more is the fact that Larkins should be protecting the rights of minority groups, being as she is, transgender - which we of course respect, fully, as a matter wholly unrelated to her politics. But we have little doubt she has, like many with gender issues, almost certainly been the target of abuse at some point due to this.

Seems now though she's happy to dish out the same hatred.

Her Twitter account at @SarahLarkins is now, naturally, protected. No surprise there.

The real story here is: "Ukip, despite evidence, refuse to sanction or eject an elected Official who openly calls for discrimination against Muslims."

Perhaps Ukip have now just stopped pretending.

Update 29/2/2016

Larkins apologised (kind of) today:
"I wish to offer an unreserved apology for offence caused by my recent comment on Facebook."

"I acknowledge this is not party policy, and realise the comment risked blaming a whole religion for the actions of a few."
Although we're not sure this actually constitutes an apology, as this does not directly mention the person to whom the comment was addressed, Sadiq Khan.

26 March 2016

Ukip's David Coburn Tried To 'Set The Record Straight' And Made An Ass Of Himself

Oh, dear, David.

After the Scottish Leaders Debate, Coburn was referred to on Twitter as Shouty McShoutyFace

Scottish current affairs magazine Holyrood yesterday ran a piece in which Ukip MEP David Coburn (he of the ill-fitting 1950's tweeds, cape, deerstalker and toaster anger) wanted, he said, to 'set the record straight'.

Or, as the journalist pointed out, 'demanded an interview, repeatedly' because he was 'left out' of the magazine 'Conference' issue.

No Coburn here
The fact that he was left out is quite understandable when you consider that not only was the photo of leaders of parties with actual elected officials in Scotland - but also that Ukip in Scotland are polling very low. Really very low.

On the independant bias-free "What Scotland Thinks", Ukip were lumped in with 'Other Parties' at 3% and actually polled at 0% with TNS/BRMB.

What puzzled us was firstly, why Coburn thought he had a right to demand an interview. If the media thought Ukip were contenders they'd have included him. They aren't - so they didn't.

Secondly, after his abysmal track record in dealing with the media, we wonder how Coburn ever thought an interview would improve his standing.

In the Scottish Leaders Debate (in which he was included, despite him leading a Party of .. well, just himself, really) he was scored at 1/10 and became laughing stock on Social Media.

25 March 2016

The #Ukip 'Securing Our Borders' Mantra, Busted.

It's a very standard Ukip catchphrase, and a very good soundbite for TV: 'Securing Our Borders'.

It suggests that our security is damaged by the inability to stop EU nationals from migrating at will to the UK.

And it's at worst, wrong .. at best, debatable but irrelevant.

Four good reasons:
  1. If we left the EU, we surely would not bar EU nationals from visiting or studying in the UK.

    Migrating? Living? Working? Maybe. (Perhaps they would qualify anyway, under this mythical 'Points System; that Ukip mention but fail to detail.)

    So if there is a security threat from EU nationals - or anyone given temporary right to move within EU nations (and that's a debatable 'if') then it can only be countered by a complete ban on all movement of all EU Nationals to the UK for any reason. Any reason at all. Which may well be desirable to Ukip .. but not to our Tourist Industry, our Educational Establishments and our entire Economy.
  2. The best way to deal with the security threat is co-operation with other European Agencies. This is on-going, and will not be affected either way by Brexit.

    And if we continue to be a part of this, by the way, we need to part-fund it, like the many other European / EU Organisations we actually want to be a part of: which also puts the 'getting back all our EU cash' Myth into the long grass.
  3. To say we cannot deport EU nationals is false. We do not have to allow criminals into the UK. Any EU citizen can be refused entry to any EU nation if they are considered to be a threat, any kind of threat. How do we know if they're a threat? By co-operation with other EU nations, of course.

    Ukip of course know this, but they continue to propagate the lie, which is a very Ukip thing.

    We have the right to deport them, too, for many reasons.

    The fact that the current Government do not put the required resources in to do so, is clearly not the fault of the EU.
  4. If Ukip or Brexiteers consider that entry to the UK for EU Nationals without a visa is a security risk, consider this:

    57 non-EU Nations - with over 1.1 billion residents - have the right to visa-free travel to the UK. These are often from nations with whose Security Services we have little organizational information exchange; so often, no or little data on the threat that each individual may pose, and no background checks.

    It seems that Ukip want a full background check and security clearance on, say, someone from Portugal - but are happy for a Botswanan or El Salvadorian to saunter through. Ukip don't want visa-free travel for a Frenchman - but a Malaysian or Namibian can walk right on in.

    This policy, of course, is nothing to do with the EU and is the responsibility of the UK Government in toto.
Nations who's citizens can just come to the UK without a visa.
So the 'security threat' that Ukip mention in relation to visa-free EU travel, if genuine, needs to be extended (on Ukip's logic) to ...

... every nation on the planet, apparently.

The Farage Rap - By @itsdanbull

Too damn good not to post, this. By Dan Bull - you can see more of his work here.

Outstanding piece of work we discovered a while ago, but never got round to sharing.