"EU Membership Damages Rather Than Improves Our Economy" - Part I of VI Part Debate With Scottish Lib Dem Leader Or Nominee

   Last Monday Willie Rennie publicly claimed that UKIP’s desire for growth was inconsistent with wanting to quit the EU. He knew UKIP were censored from the debate  – hence the present online debate

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In 1980 the 10 EU countries represented 30.9% of world gdp. Now the 28  represent 18.3% and declining. The world economy is growing at 3.4%, which means, with the EU in recession, the non-EU 83% is growing at 4.1%. The EU is the only zone of the world economy in recession.

    Why is the EU failing? Professor Tim Congdon calculates that membership costs us £170 billion & Professor Minford has a similar figure. This includes an estimate of 5% of gdp lost directly though EU bureaucracy (the rest is mainly higher food costs, welfare costs of immigrants and our direct financial payment). If this be thought surprisingly large it may be because it is little reported in Britain that EU Commissioner, Gunter Verheuggen has publicly estimated bureaucracy cost slightly higher at 5.5% of the community’s wealth.

   This is simply the immediate cost – the long term cost of the lost growth giving us an economy half the size it should be is far greater.

     For 40 years now British politicians have said that all that is needed is reform and they will achieve it, given a couple more years. We didn’t quit when we were ahead. Perhaps we should quit now we are [40yrs X £170bn} £6,800,000,000,000 behind.

Censorship of UKIP in the Referendum "Debate" Means Some Of The Clearest Arguments Are Being Suppressed

  A letter to most Scottish & UK papers. It is long so when they decide not to publish I will send several cut down versions, probably amount to a couple of hundred separate submissions. That would effectively guarantee publication of our press were interested in balanced letters pages.
-----------------------------------------
Sir,

     At his Scottish conference, LibDem leader Nick Clegg has said how important it is that the Unionist parties work together to defeat the separation referendum. Liberals, Labour and Conservative. There is obviously something missing from this spirit of togetherness – any willingness to work with the 3^rd party in British politics UKIP (4^th in Scotland, but still ahead of Clegg’s own & likely to take 1^st place in the EU elections).

 

      I attended a debate hosted by a leftist charity where the 3 approved parties spoke but from which UKIP was censored. The audience vote showed the approved parties lost heavily. This failure was all the more unnecessary since all the “nationalist” speakers, even from the SNP, were antagonistic to nationalism. All based their pitches on the, in my view, unrealistic expectation that separation would make us independent of the laws of arithmetic and able to make enormous financial commitments without raising any money. One speaker even acknowledged, in response to my question, that he would be happy to see us in permanent recession as long as their shibboleths were satisfied. It should not have been difficult to win that debate.

 

     By comparison, last year UKIP’s leader Mike Scott-Hayward, candidate Stuart Maskell and I stood, without preparation, in debate against Yes campaigners (the traditional party representatives all pulled out at the last moment) and won convincingly.

 

     Part of it is that some of the most clear-cut arguments involve the EU. If Scotland were to join as a new nation we would, at best, get the basic new nation terms. This means we would lose our share of Britain’s rebate (£500 million); would have to sign the Shengen immigration terms, meaning border posts at Gretna; agree to eventually joining the Euro; and sign up to the working time agreements which, going by the far worse continental employment figures, would destroy 170,000 jobs. However, because the traditional parties are EU enthusiasts they are clearly reluctant to mention this, and do not appear to have their hearts in the fight at all.

 

    By excluding UKIP, for party political reasons, they (& the BBC whose censorship of UKIP in Scotland would have done the Soviets proud) are preventing Scots having a full and rounded debate. This is what happened in the AV referendum where the LibDems refused UKIP’s assistance, deciding to depend on the popularity of Clegg – and lost despite the polls starting in their favour. If Britain is destroyed and Scotland plunged into financial disaster under incompetent politicians who think wishing will make it so (& who have already threatened to repudiate the national debt, something no sensible chancellor ever merely threatens to do) it will not be because the extreme “socialists” and a declining covering of nationalists, have won the debate. It will be because the LabConDems & BBC have ensured Scots have not had a real debate. From experience both Clegg and I can confirm that those presenting the UKIP view can win in debate whenever we are not censored out of it. We can win the debate on whether Britain should have a future if we are not censored and Scotland’s future is too important an issue for it to be settled by party interests.

 

Neil Craig    

Refs - The Referendum debate UKIP won http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2012/12/ukip-debate-independence-campaign-ukip.html

The one the approved parties lost http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/independence-debate-not-about.html

First Farage/Clegg Debate a Success

To nobody's surprise the poll after the first (radio) Farage/Clegg debate on the EU showed Nigel winning handsomely (57:36%).

 

The next hour-long debate will be shown on BBC2 from 7pm on Wednesday, 2 April, and will be hosted by David Dimbleby.

 

This can only do us good (& to be fair will probably give the LD some good too since they are angling to take pro-EU voters from the LabCons, in which we may wish them good luck.

----------------------------------

The party’s main 2014 conference will be held at Doncaster Racecourse, relatively nearby, in South Yorkshire,on Friday September 26 and Saturday September 27. http://www.ukip.org/newsroom/news/1262-ukip-to-hold-it-s-biggest-ever-annual-conference-at-doncaster-racecourse-as-the-party-goes-from-strength-to-strength-in-south-Yorkshire

------------------------------------

BRIAN'S BIG DEBATE, for BBC radio Scotland

 

We have hopes of getting MEP candidate David Coburn on the panel here though, as always, when trying to get the BBC not to censor, it is an uphill struggle. UKIP's recent poll rating of 6% would guarantee us about 1/7th as much coverage as the SNP if the law requiring "balance" in BBC coverage were upheld.

 

WHERE:               Kilmardinny Arts Centre, Bearsden, Glasgow, G61 3NN

WHEN:                 Friday 4^th April

TIMES:                  Doors open at the venue at 11:00am the show is on air from 12pm - 1pm

BOOK ONLINE: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-15190428

 

   I will be in the audience again..

Online Debate Challenge To LD Leader Willie Rennie Over EU Or Growth (After He Used The Fact That UKIP Was Being Censored To Attack Us)

To the Scottish LibDem Leader who used the recent "debate without opposition" to attack UKIP's EU policy knowing UKIP was being censored.

Dear Mr Rennie,

             I believe that genuine free debate without anybody being censored is a necessary condition for a true democracy. If you agree and wish that I'm sure you will accept this offer.

    I was the gentleman from UKIP that, in Monday's debate, pointed out that none of you Holyrood MEPs actually wanted to get our economy out of the doldrums and into growth (& give Harvie some credit for having admitted it, though he personally immediately backtracked a little). You took the opportunity to attack me for wanting growth and at the same time being against EU membership.

    Obviously it is possible to hold both views if you think, as I  almost all economists and the EU do, that the EU is holding back growth. The sceptical might believe that the only reason you dared to attack my position was that you knew that you were benefiting from the “Skeptic’s” anti-sceptical  censorship of freedom of expression and that I would not be allowed to point out where you are wrong.

         However you can prove me wrong by accepting a challenge to publicly debate with a UKIP representative (perhaps our EU candidate, perhaps myself) on either whether the EU is adding to[NC1]  our growth or whether we could achieve serious growth rates with UKIP policies (or both if you chose). Accepting would suggest you either believe in your policies or accept free debate as preferable to totalitarian censorship (or possibly both). On the other hand Charles Kennedy, who did at conference, call on your party to debate against UKIP, has repeatedly declined to do so.

 

      If you do not feel up to this you or a representative are invited to engage in an online debate. Formal debate involves alternate speakers getting, usually, 3 alternate opportunities to put their case and rebut their opponents. I invite you to debate on my blog.

 

     On Monday 31st March I will put up, in no more than 250 words my position on why the EU is economically damaging; you or your representative are invited to reply by 6.00 on Tuesday 1st April in 250n words; I will reply on Weds 3rd; you on Thurs 4th; me on Fri 5th and finally you on Sat 6 th.

 

      Alternately, if you prefer, we can debate whether UKIP economic policies should be reasonably expected to get us out of the current economic doldrums and into several times higher growth. Your choice.

 

Looking forward to a true debate.

Neil Craig

UKIP Glasgow

 

      OK lets see if they are up to it. Possibly not Rennie himself (even if he signs it) but there must be somebody in the party (I also sent it to the party) who feels they can make a serious case for staying in the EU. I am entirely serious about the necessity of open debate on politics, without it no free choice is possible, and I am sure the "Liberal Democrats" will, at least officially agree [ even the "Glasgow Skeptics" who ran the show, claim to believe in "critical thinking" though not when it is critical of the state parasites they support.

 

      Since Rennie specifically challenged me at the "Skeptics" do over the EU, if there is anything at all the party feels able to defend in debate that would be it.

 

     However it goes I will put my side of the case on Monday, Wednesday and Friday & whatever they present Tuesday, Thursday & Saturday which gives them the advantage of the last word. Of they decide not I can doubtless find an appropriate image.

Debate on Separation - Mitchell Theatre, Glasgow

Independence "Debate" - Not About Nationalism But About Unlimited Promises Of Toys

    Last night attended the "Glasgow Skeptics - promoting science, critical thinking and freedom of expression" - a government sock puppet who were running a "debate" on independence. I have previously mentioned the "Skeptics" and their absolute objection to sceptical thinking and free debate over alleged catastrophic global warming. So their decision to give places to the 5 cartel parties and undeniably Fascist and racist Radical Independencers while excluding UKIP was expected. Such is normal of state funded puppets.

Speakers

Jackson Carlaw (Tory) Jackie Baillie (Labour & Willie Rennie (LibDim) for No and Patrick Harvie (Green), some woman (SNP) and the cofounder of Radical Independence (Fascist).

 

    When I took my seat and not before I put on the UKIP rosette.

 

    Both the SNP and RI put gratuitous attacks on UKIP into their speeches. When the second did it I stood up and said “Mr Chair, I would like a ruling – is it proper that this is the second speaker to have made a gratuitous attack on UKIP when UKIP has been censored from the debate”. Well actually I only got the first few words before being drowned out. So I repeated and repeated and repeated and……. Eventually got the question out, at which time I was surrounded by bouncers, who explained that I would have to leave. I sat down and said you’ll have to carry me which they threatened to do but didn’t follow through. The chair obviously declined to rule on whether it was proper to use the venue to attack UKIP when UKIP had specifically been denied a chance to speak.

        In the QandA section I did get to speak – I pointed out that the Fascist (because that, and racist, is what RI had proven themselves to be when they attacked Farage) had denounced fuel poverty, but that none of the parties allowed to speak actually cared about fuel or any other sort of poverty. That the only way to end poverty is to increase national wealth and that while all of them knew how to do so – it was fairly easy and UKIP are full of policies saying how (which is true – cheap energy, save £170 bn out of the EU & cut parasitic government regulation). I then pointed out the incongruity of some Yes supporters decrying poverty when Patrick Harvie had said on TV that nobody should vote Yes in the expectation it will produce any growth in the foreseeable future.

 

Harvie said this is not exactly what he said – I said it was precisely what had said (& it was) but then went on to acknowledge that he was not a fan of growth and would be happy if we were poorer but fairer. To be fair to him he does come fairly close to saying what he means which puts him ahead of the rest, though “fair” is a very subjective word and I doubt if there are 2 people alive who would totally agree in what it means, which is why politicos use it.

 

     The only other one to say anything on my truthful charge that UKIP have the policies to end crerate wealth but none of them care was Willy Rennie. He denounced me for saying I want growth when I want to quit the EU. I put my hand up, twice, and loudly asked the chair if I would be allowed to answer the point but naturally wasn't. A voice for the audience said “No you won’t” & I replied “That was rather my point”.

 

     I was interested that 2 1/2 of the Yes speakers, and from the cheers almost all of this atypical audience, were resolutely opposed to nationalism (the 1/2 being the official SNP). This may not be entirely how the Yes campaign runs nationally but it is clear that the campaign has very little room for nationalists and patriots. It is entirely about various sorts of "socialist" promising each other that, come the revolution, there will be unlimited money to pay the unwaged, windmills, foreign aid, government employees, Gaelic programming, awareness raising activities, ensuring everybody working on Trident still gets paid etc.

     2 audience questions interesting more for the response than their originality.

 

     One man said how could we vote to stay in the union when we have the present electoral system, a position I have a lot of sympathy with. Carlaw, who answered it completely misunderstood the question, answering one about the English outvoting us. I am sure he was not just deliberately choosing to answer a different question but just didn’t get it. To be fair to Harvie again he acknowledged the probability that if we got separation the Scottish people will not use it to introduce all this unaffordable stuff. He is clearly intellectually head and shoulders above the kiddie "socialists" beside him, though that is not high praise.

 

      Another asked the No campaigners to say what vision they were offering. This has been asked regularly because they have been unable to answer it but the fact they have been unable to answer it shows how useless “better together” is. The answer is we’re living in it. A no vote means we can promise to keep the £ (OK the SNP promise it too but they can’t do so honestly); to keep Gretna free of border inspectors; to keep the BBC; common citizenship; the right to a referendum on EU membership; and the English subsidy of our windmills. That may not be the offer of the vision of Utopia the SNP offer bit it has the advantage of being real. Yet nobody on the No campaign has the gumption to say it.

 

       That was pretty much it. The audience was stacked with “socialist” evangelists and no doubt will have voted overwhelmingly for separation, as they did going in.

 

     I have written to Willie Rennie inviting him to debate either in person or online - see Wednesday's.

How Science Fiction Introduced Me to Freedom

    Brian Monteith has put this up on ThinkScotland and also, with the speech edited as it uses a shorter format, on the Free Society blog Please put any comments there.


WHEN I AND THE WORLD were much younger than now and both of us thought we were more “leftist” than today I read a book, set on the Moon, about a revolution where the very lowest in society rise up and overthrow the corrupt imperialist running dogs of the ruling class. By throwing rocks at them.

With a fair bit of liberated sex thrown in, which played to one of my interests at the time, and an awful lot of slang dialogue, which was not such an interest, it definitely established itself as hip countercultural stuff.

The book is The Moon is a Harsh Mistress by Robert Heinlein (whose picture on the cover astonishingly showed him with a military style crew cut.) It took me some time to realise that the absolute free market regime this underclass live under was not “left wing”. It exists only because the oppressors, an EU style world state, are too lazy to run society and the lack of any popular democracy means people cannot oppress each other in the name of democracy as we do today.

As is normal with Heinlein the social engineering is as well thought out as the traditional sort of engineering. Only years later did I find out that the mentor character, Professor Bernardo de la Paz was closely based on the real life anarchist philosopher Robert LeFevre. There is no shortage of the action needed for an exciting story full of ideas from an intelligent computer to a remarkably simple and genuinely effective ultimate weapon - enough to satisfy anybody looking for such. Also, there are as many ideas per paragraph most writers give per book, but then that applies to most of the Heinlen’s  books.

The philosophical heart of the book is this speech from the professor made to the Lunar Constitutional Convention: 

“Like fire & fusion, government is a dangerous servant and a terrible master. You now have freedom - if you can keep it. But do remember that you can lose this freedom more quickly to yourselves than to any other tyrant. Move slowly, be hesitant, puzzle out the consequences of every word. I would not be unhappy if this convention sat for ten years before reporting - but I would be frightened if you took less than a year.

Distrust the obvious, suspect the traditional ...for in the past mankind has not done well when saddling itself with governments. For example, I note in one draft report a proposal for setting up a commission to divide Luna into congressional districts and to reapportion them from time to time according to population.

This is the traditional way; therefore it should be suspect, considered guilty until proven innocent. Perhaps you feel that this is the _only_ way. May I suggest others? Surely where a man lives is the least important thing about him. Constituencies might be formed by dividing people by occupation ... or by age ... or even alphabetically. Or they might not be divided, every member elected at large - and do not object that this would make it impossible for any man not widely known throughout Luna to be elected; that might be the best possible thing for Luna.

You might even consider installing the candidate who got the least number of votes; unpopular men may be just the sort to save you from a new tyranny. Don't reject the idea merely because it seems preposterous - think about it! In past history popularly elected governments have been no better and sometimes worse than overt tyrannies.

But if representative government turns out to be your intention there still may be ways to achieve it better than the territorial district. For example you each represent about 10,000 human beings, perhaps 7,000 of voting age - and some of you were elected by slim majorities  Suppose instead of election a man were qualified for office by petition signed by 4,000 citizens. He would then represent these 4,000 affirmatively, with no disgruntled minority, for what would be a minority in a territorial constituency would all be free to start other petitions or join in them. All would then be represented by men of their choice. Or a man with 8,000 supporters might have 2 votes in this body. Difficulties, objections, practical points to be worked out - many of them! But you could work them out ... and thereby avoid the chronic sickness of representative government; the disgruntled minority which feels - correctly - that it has been disenfranchised.

But whatever you do not let the past be a straitjacket!

I note 1 proposal to make this Congress a two-house body. Excellent - the more impediment to legislation the better. But instead of following tradition, I suggest one house of legislators, another whose single duty is to repeal laws. Let the legislators pass laws only with a 2/3rds majority ... while the repealers are able to cancel any law through a mere 1/3rd minority. Preposterous? think about it.

If a bill is so poor that it cannot command 2/3rds of your consents is it not likely to make a poor law? And if a law is disliked by as many as 1/3rd is it not likely that you would be better off without it?
But in writing your constitution let me invite attention to the wonderful virtues of the negative! Accentuate the negative. Let your document be studded with things the government is forever forbidden to do. No conscript armies ... no interference, however slight with freedom of press, or speech, or travel, or assembly, or of religion, or of instruction, or communication, or occupation ... no involuntary taxation. Comrades if you were to spend five years in a study of history while thinking of more and more things that your government should promise never to do and then let your constitution be nothing but those negatives, I would not fear the outcome.

What I fear most are affirmative actions of sober and well-intentioned men, granting to government power to do something that appears to need doing. Please remember always that the Lunar Authority was created for the noblest of purposes by just such sober and well-intentioned men, all popularly elected. And with that thought I leave you to your labours."

As a Scot, with our SNP government having made some comments about how, come the day, they will provide us with a constitution that will enshrine all sorts of rights (the second ‘draft’ is now available), not for us to restrain the state but giving the state a duty to restrain us in the name of the "environment", education or what have you, I wish any of them had as much understanding as the Professor's audience.

I don’t want to upset any fans of Ayn Rand, who is a libertarian icon (rather a contradiction in terms) but she isn’t a fraction as good as Heinlein. Possibly her leaden prose and hammering the ideas home makes her better guru material. More likely the fact that Heinlein plays with all sorts of social ideas in different books; bureaucracy Star Beast; military rule Starship Troopers; absolute monarchy Glory Road; constitutional monarchy Double Star; by secret conspiracy Friday; dictatorship Time Enough For Love; theocracy Stranger in a Strange Land and this made him too big and unpredictable to be buttonholed as anybody’s guru.

On the other hand his successful societies have at least as much freedom as we have seen in our lifetimes. What more should you ask for?

“Political tags — such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth — are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire. The former are idealists acting from highest motives for the greatest good of the greatest number. The latter are surly curmudgeons, suspicious and lacking in altruism. But they are more comfortable neighbours than the other sort.”
Robert A. Heinlen 1907-1988

Neil Craig is proprietor of Scotland's largest independent science fiction bookshop http://futureshockbks.blogspot.co.uk/

   Another of these letters which the Scottish press decide not to publish - either because it doesn't reach their demanding literary standards or because they censor, or perhaps for some wholly unknown reason:

Sir,
      We now have confirmation from Mr Miliband, that Labour are committed to staying in the EU without even a referendum.

 

       I remember back when Neil Kinnock became Labour leader. Then they were committed to leaving the EU, without even a referendum.

 

       In the intervening period Mr Kinnock and indeed his entire family have moved on to many many lucrative EU jobs. They have moved seamlessly from "no Kinnock in 1,000 years has gone to university" to leading members of the new Euro-aristocracy. An aristocracy who regularly glory in the word "technocrat" though in fact very few of them have any sort of technical knowledge that would justify that term. China's rulers, for better or worse, almost all have degrees in engineering or accountancy whereas ours mainly seem to have studied Politics Philosophy & Economics (known as "the bluffer's degree").

 

       What we have never seen is the massive open political debate within the Labour party that alone could justify this complete about face. The EU is the only world zone still in recession (the rest is growing at an average of nearly 6%). It has been calculated to cost our economy £170 billion. It means unlimited immigration from other member countries. If an "independent" Scotland were to join it on normal terms, since UK opt outs protect 2 million jobs, we would expect to lose 170,000. Yet none of this was seriously discussed as Labour reversed itself.

 

      Apparently the only thing old Labour and new Labour have in common is that the common people will not be consulted by referendum.

 

Neil Craig UKIP