Thursday 2 October 2014
Part 2 has been posted below this ... the comment thread here serves both posts
Conservative Home picks up on a Conservative fringe event, jointly hosted by British Future and ConHome, "provocatively" entitled "Immigration: How can we make promises we keep?" Interestingly, the four panel members, including Paul Goodman and Owen Paterson, all refrained from offering easy answers. They indicated that they would leave such disreputable behaviour to UKIP.
Nevertheless, Owen Paterson turned up to point out, in formidably well-briefed remarks, that leaving the EU and following the border control path of Norway or Australia would not guarantee lower migration.
He observed that immigration was "a huge recruiting agent" for UKIP, which was "quite ruthless" at exploiting the issue, then going on to point out that "we do need to have open borders to have a dynamic, thriving economy".
This was against the background of Reckless's defection, and his claim that unless we leave the EU we shall be unable to restrict immigration. This is quite wrong, Paterson averred. About 13 percent of the UK's population consists of immigrants, but the equivalent figure for Norway is 14.9 percent, for Switzerland it is 23 per cent, and for Australia, with its much-vaunted points system, the migrant level stands at 27 percent.
None of those countries, as we are well aware, is in the EU, which had Paterson arguing that, "there are no glib, easy, quick-fix answers". Copying Australia's points-based immigration system may sound to some like the answer, he said, but it’s it was "glib and Ukippish".
On this, Paterson is absolutely right, and in more ways than are immediately apparent, with Australia providing a fascinating example of how the superficial case made by UKIP – which wants to adopt the Australian system – falls apart the moment it is examined in detail.
The crucial thing to appreciate is that, as with every country, immigration policy is in determined by many factors, but especially strong drivers are geography, neighbourhood relations, and the state of the economy, both in absolute terms and relative to its neighbours.
The particular points to note with Australia though are its geography, and its neighbours – or relative lack of them, close to hand. The closest country at an equal stage of development is New Zealand, and that is separated by 925 miles of sea. Arguably, if Australia was separated by a mere 22 miles from a major continental land mass, its attitude to migration might be very different, specifically in terms of freedom of movement between close neighbours.
And there's the rub. There is freedom of movement between Australia and New Zealand.
New Zealand citizens are able to live, work, and study in Australia indefinitely on special "temporary" visas due to reciprocal arrangements
between the two countries. New Zealanders settling in Australia are included in total settler numbers but are not counted as part of Australia's Migration Programme unless they choose to apply for permanent residence as skilled or family migrants.
In other words, between Australia and New Zealand exist more or less the same "freedom of movement" arrangements as exist between EU member states.
As for the much-vaunted points-based immigration system
, this limits immigration visas to applicants who conform to certain criteria, and who have certain skills. Potential applicants have to stack up 60 points
but basically, if you are under 50, can speak English and have a pulse, you can get in. There are so many "skilled" occupations almost anyone could find a fit, whether a cook, florist or community worker.
Even then, for an applicant who has no skills, there is the unskilled migrant entry scheme. Then there is the "family stream", where relatives of existing immigrants can join them, and then there is the humanitarian stream, for the substantial number of asylum seekers who are given entry.
On top of all this, there is a holiday worker scheme, and for those who do not qualify for permanent visas, there are temporary visas. Through either of these, workers can acquire points to go towards qualifying for a permanent visa, as work experience in Australia is weighted in favour of the applicant.
Looking at this in the round, one might conclude that a skills-based quota system works brilliantly, with just a few provisos. Taking from the Australian model, the skill-set has to be relaxed, it shouldn't be applied rigorously and there must be plenty of exemptions.
And that is why, for the 2014-15 programme
, the Australians intend to admit 190,000 migrants. On a pro rata
basis, this is equivalent to the UK admitting half a million people, making it an interesting choice as UKIP's poster child for its immigration policy.
As Owen Paterson says, there aren't any easy answers. And we should not pretend there are.
Thursday 2 October 2014
The tail end of the Conservative Home report (to which we refer in part I), has comments from Isabel Oakeshott, who is at work with Lord Ashcroft on a biography of David Cameron. She points out that last year 560,000 people moved to the UK, which "made an absolute mockery of Cameron's pledge to bring immigration down to the tens of thousands".
Oakeshott then remarks, "how little immigration comes up" in Cameron's speeches. She says, it is "not very fashionable to praise Andy Coulson", but that while serving as Communications Director at Number Ten, "he did push the Prime Minister to confront the issue". In Oakeshott's view, Cameron "has to put up a real fight on the free movement of people within the EU".
Instead of that, though, all we are getting from Mr Cameron is silly games as he offers via the Mail what is described as an "emergency brake" that could be applied to prevent large numbers of immigrants arriving from Europe.
This, we are told, is a system that would allow the UK to impose a block on incomers from particular countries if numbers become too big is being backed by senior ministers. Initial negotiations, it is said, are already under way over what would be a fundamental reform of the EU's founding principle of free movement of people between countries.
From the context of the report, though, this is to apply only to new accession countries, and is not in any way a "fundamental reform". Such a block can be accommodated in any new accession treaty, over which the UK would quite normally have a veto.
Typically, though, this is a rehash of a previous announcement, one that we saw in the Financial Times on 26 November 2013, on which we reported a couple of days later.
It was then that Mr Cameron said, in his authored piece, that he would be looking for a system that would require a new country to reach a certain income or economic output per head before full free movement was allowed. Individual member states, he said, could be freed to impose a cap if their inflow from the EU reached a certain number in a single year.
Continuing to play games, however, in his speech to conference yesterday
, Mr Cameron told his audience that "we need controlled borders and an immigration system that puts the British people first".
For sure, as he pointed out, some of the "pull" factors have been addressed. "We've capped economic migration from outside the EU…shut down 700 bogus colleges – that were basically visa factories…kicked out people who don't belong here", he said. "But", he continued,
… we know the bigger issue today is migration from within the EU. Immediate access to our welfare system. Paying benefits to families back home. Employment agencies signing people up from overseas and not recruiting here. Numbers that have increased faster than we in this country wanted…at a level that was too much for our communities, for our labour markets.
"All of this has to change", he added, "and it will be at the very heart of my renegotiation strategy for Europe. Britain, I know you want this sorted so I will go to Brussels, I will not take no for an answer and when it comes to free movement – I will get what Britain needs".
For the conference, some might have been impressed with his challenge that: "Anyone who thinks I can't or won't deliver this – judge me by my record". He then said:
I'm the first Prime Minister to veto a Treaty … the first Prime Minister to cut the European budget … and yes I pulled us out of those European bail-out schemes as well. Around that table in Europe they know I say what I mean, and mean what I say.
But the trouble is that he can't get a fundamental treaty change, even if he was intending to, so what he says is moonshine – especially from a man whose "veto" is delusionary.
Oakeshott's view was that Cameron "has to put up a real fight on the free movement of people within the EU". But he's not even trying to do that, and the attempt to recycle old news is simply laughable. But what was missing from the CH
report was that there are schemes that can be applied, and should be applied, which would have considerable impact on the management of immigration.
For instance, Mr Paterson spoke about the Seasonal Agricultural Works Scheme
(SAWS), which has had a beneficial effect in providing growers with a reliable, predictable labour force for picking crops.
In place for over 60 years, it is a victim of EU "freedom of movement" provisions, restricted in the last few years to Romanian and Bulgarian workers, allowing about 22,000 annually, on temporary visas, when they return after the picking season. Now scrapped
, this was an excellent example of how worker inflow could be managed, and there are fears that without the scheme, it is going to be very difficult to recruit workers with the necessary skills and dedication.
This is possibly one area where we can go to the wire in any Article 50 negotiations, as the original Treaty of Rome pursues the idea of free movement of workers – not unrestricted migration. That has not come with the EU treaties, but largely with ECHR provisions.
There, at least, in his speech, Mr Cameron is pledging to deal with the Human Rights Court in Strasbourg. "We do not require instruction on this from judges in Strasbourg", Cameron said in yesterday's speech, adding:
So at long last, with a Conservative Government after the next election, this country will have a new British Bill of Rights…to be passed in our Parliament…rooted in our values……and as for Labour's Human Rights Act? We will scrap it, once and for all.
The trouble is that, like Mr Cameron's EU referendum pledge, we've heard it all before. Our problem is then to calculate where the balance of advantage lies. Given a Conservative government, there is a chance that we could have the referendum. There is a chance that we could dispense with the ECHR.
Here, of course, we are dealing with uncertainties. But there is the absolute certainty that, under Labour, neither will happen. And, as Mr Cameron remarked yesterday, on 7th May you could go to bed with Nigel Farage, and wake up with Ed Miliband. As Dan Hodges says in the Telegraph
, "Only Nigel Farage can stop David Cameron now". For once, loathe as I am to admit it, he is probably right.
But, if a Conservative victory could lead us to an EU referendum, it leads us no closer to a credible immigration policy. But then, governments in office rarely come up with ground-breaking policy. The seeds of Thatcherism, for instance, were planted long before the Lady became prime minister.
Thus, we go back to Paterson. Unreported by CH
, at the fringe event, he talked about stopping subsidies to Spanish fishing fleets pillaging the fish stocks of the shores of West Africa
, and breaking up predatory trade deals
as a way of relieving migratory pressure.
The essence is to look at unwanted migration not as a problem, but as the symptom, not of one problem but of many. This, in many cases, is why immigration policy fails. As any doctor will tell you, treating the causes of a disease rather than the symptoms is usually the best way of doing things. So it is with immigration.
And here, there really is no easy answer. There is not even any one answer. But by diligent analysis of all the issues, and careful policy assessment rooted in the real world, it is possible to have an effect. And that, Mr Paterson was saying, is where we need to be.
Wednesday 1 October 2014
Bombing has not been decisive in any recent conflict, writes Richard Norton-Taylor in the Guardian
. Far from it. It has been counterproductive and an expensive waste.
In the past, pilots have quickly run out of targets. It will be even more difficult now, as RAF Tornado crews have already discovered, to find them as they continue to search for Islamic State (Isis) fighters in Iraq now.
The RAF Tornados, based in Britain's base at Akrotiri in Cyprus, can fire radar-guided anti-armour Brimstone missiles, which are conservatively estimated to cost £100,000 each; heavier Paveway IV bombs, estimated at £30,000 apiece; and long-range Storm Shadow missiles, estimated at nearly £790,000 each.
Actually the Storm Shadows cost over £1 million, but apart from that, Norton-Taylor is spot on. We see the pics and the first strike knocks out a pick-up truck and a machine gun.
The fuel bill almost certainly cost more than the targets, and the Brimstone, at a cool £100,000 makes a mockery of the entire concept of cost-effectiveness. We can't do war this way – the IS can trade their lives for our wealth and beat us every time.
Wednesday 1 October 2014
A cluster of news stories today, taking in the BBC, the Mail and the Telegraph, attests to the re-emergence of slavery in the UK, the detail based on a report from the National Crime Agency (NCA) on: "The Nature and Scale of Human Trafficking in 2013".
Key points from the report are that Romania is the most prevalent country of origin for potential victims of trafficking in the UK. This is for the third consecutive year, and more than half are exploited for sex.
Poland is the most common country of origin for potential victims of labour trafficking. Some 91 percent of potential victims from Poland had experienced labour exploitation.
Of UK minors identified as potential victims, 88 percent had been sexually exploited, an increase of 250 percent on those reported in 2012. Of the 55 children exploited for benefit claims, 91 percent originated from Slovakia.
Primarily, as the figures would indicate, slavery is a crime affecting migrants, and in the UK, 78 percent of potential victims exploited for labour were EEA nationals who were legally working in the UK.
People are brought into the UK with the specific intention of their being exploited, either for the sex trade or for forced labour. Hand car washes were one type of business where slaves were used, but they were also exploited in drug factories and on bogus doorstep charity collections.
From the Flexcit perspective, therefore, there is a policy interest at two levels. Firstly, it involves a substantial numbers of incomers – 2,744 in 2013, including 602 children, up 22 per cent on 2012. That they are coming into the country for no good purpose is an integral part of our immigration policy.
Secondly, while some slavery is a home-grown crime, this is primarily a cross-border crime which requires a multi-national (and multi-agency) approach to resolve it.
The multi-national dimension is, to say the very least, complex, and serves as another good illustration of the difficulties we will have in unravelling and redefining our arrangements once we leave the EU.
The key driver of international cooperation here is not, as one might suspect, the EU, bit the Council of Europe, with its 2005 Council of Europe Convention Against Trafficking in Human Beings (THB). But, as we can see from this report, the convention is only the start.
In addition, the UK is Party to the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons, Especially Women and Children ("Palermo Protocol"), supplementing the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organised Crime, which it ratified on 9 February 2006.
The UK is also Party to the UN Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women (CEDAW) and the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the Sale of Children, Child Prostitution and Child Pornography.
To this one can add International Labour Organisation (ILO) Conventions No. 29 and 105 on Forced Labour and Convention No. 182 on Eliminating the Worst Forms of Child Labour. Further, the UK has acceded to a number of Council of Europe conventions in the criminal field which are relevant to action against THB.
On the EU front, most readers will be aware that the UK was not initially bound by Directive 2011/36/EU on preventing and combating trafficking in human beings and protecting its victims. This was the directive, it will be recalled, that replaced Council Framework Decision 2002/629/JHA on combating trafficking in human beings.
The reason for the non-application was due to the fact that pursuant to the rules agreed in the 2007 Lisbon Treaty, the UK had a number of "opt-outs" secured since the 1992 Maastricht Treaty, including measures in the area of justice and home affairs, while allowing for the possibility to "opt in" on a case-by-case basis.
In July 2011, the UK authorities notified to the European Commission (EC) of
their intention to be bound by 2011/36/EU and on 14 October 2011, the EC issued a decision according to which this Directive will apply in the UK.
Nevertheless, EU Directive 2004/81/EC of 29 April 2004 on the residence permit issued to third-country nationals who are victims of trafficking in human beings or who have been the subject of an action to facilitate illegal immigration, and who co-operate with the competent authorities, is not applicable in the UK, in light of our "opt-outs".
The UK is also bound by EU Directive 2004/80/EC relating to compensation to crime victims, as well as by EU Council Framework Decision 2001/220/JHA of 15 March 2001 on the standing of victims in criminal proceedings.
As one might expect, the UK legal system requires legislative measures to give effect to international treaties which have been signed and ratified in order to make them enforceable. The entry into force of the Council of Europe Anti-Trafficking Convention was accompanied by the formalisation of the identification procedures through the setting up of a National Referral Mechanism on 1 April 2009.
Without a hint of irony, we are then told that the legal and institutional framework in the field of action against THB in the UK is "complex", but primarily due to the process of devolution through which the constituent countries of the UK have been granted varying powers to make legislation and administer certain areas.
Devolved matters, whereas border and immigration control, including the identification of trafficking victims, are reserved matters dealt with by the central UK government. Education and health, which are linked to the prevention of THB and the protection of and assistance to victims of trafficking, are also devolved matters.
While Northern Ireland only received policing and justice powers in 2010, Scotland has traditionally had its own law enforcement, civil and criminal law, and justice system. England and Wales have the same legal system and apply the same legal instruments.
As has the international system, legislation on trafficking in human beings in the UK has developed piecemeal over the years and is attached to other legislation according to the form of exploitation.
The provisions relating to trafficking of people for exploitation, including by way of forced labour, slavery and organ harvesting, are contained in Sections 4 and 5 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004.
The Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Sexual Offences (Northern Ireland) Order 2008 apply in case of trafficking for the purpose of sexual exploitation. Further, there is a separate offence, "slavery, servitude and forced or compulsory labour", under the Coroners and Justice Act 2009.
Trafficking for the purpose of the removal of organs is criminalised by the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants) Act 2004, the Human Organ Transplants Act 1989, and the Human Organ Transplants (Northern Ireland) Order 1989.
In addition, Section 4 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004 was amended by the Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Act 2009 to combat trafficking of children and vulnerable adults where they are brought into the UK for the purpose of obtaining benefits.
The payment of sexual services provided by a prostitute subjected to force, deception, threats or other form of coercion, is criminalised by the Policing and Crime Act 2009 in England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
This brings us to page 15 of a 117-page report, describing the situation in the UK from the Council of Europe perspective. From there, we take in the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (applicable in England and Wales), which was passed in May 2012, but has not yet come into force.
We are reliably informed that the Act introduces a number of amendments to the Sexual Offences Act 2003 and the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Act 2004, including to criminalise internal trafficking and expand the offences of THB for the purpose of sexual, labour or other exploitation to cover those committed by UK nationals abroad.
This Act has replaced the THB-related offences in the Sexual Offences Act (Sections 57 to 59) with a single provision on trafficking people for sexual exploitation (Section 59A). Further, the Legal Aid, Sentencing and Punishment of Offenders Act 2012, which entered into force in May 2012, includes provisions on legal aid for victims of trafficking.
There is no specific legislation in the UK concerning child trafficking. Assistance to child victims of trafficking is governed by general legislation on children’s welfare. The Children Act 1989 (applicable to England and Wales), the Children (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 and the Children (Scotland) Act 1995 place a statutory duty on local authorities to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need.
Thus local authorities must investigate if they have a reasonable cause to believe that a child who lives or is found in their area is suffering from harm. Further, local authorities are authorised to inspect the premises used for private fostering, and may prohibit private fostering under certain circumstances.
There is more, except that the list is more than enough to be going on with. It does illustrate the point: multiple agencies and multiple laws all combine to create a cat's cradle of officialdom which, in the final analysis, doesn't achieve anything very much. The problem is clearly not under control and is growing in extent.
However, the UK is currently processing the Modern Slavery Bill, the first of its kind in Europe. This, we are told, will make it easier to prosecute the organised criminals behind the majority of modern slavery, ensure slave drivers receive tougher sentences and improve the protection of victims.
If we leave the EU, it won't make any immediate difference to UK law. But we'll also have to decide whether the UK stays in the Council of Europe, and whether we continue with the Conventions, although the law which brings them into force is already in place.
Where we would possibly lose out is that we would no longer be tapping into the Group of Experts on Action against Trafficking in Human Beings (GRETA), which serves to co-ordinate and inform action. We would also unhook ourselves from the EU strategy towards the Eradication of Trafficking in Human Beings 2012–2016, and we would also lose our Europol links, and the rest of the alphabet soup: FRA, EASO, CEPOL, Frontex and Eurojust.
The point here is that I can't see anyone arguing that tackling modern slavery should stop, and that we should not be co-ordinating our activities with European and global agencies.
So, in any Article 50 negotiations, this is just one of the thousands of issues that have to be addressed. We may or may not think it worthwhile to have a special agreement on this, but it will certainly have to be considered – yet another unwitting complication to add to the many others.
Tuesday 30 September 2014
On the basis of Lord Ashcroft's " snapshot ", delivered to the Conservative conference yesterday, the number of losses [in Conservative seats] could extend to the point where Labour gains a comfortable working majority at the general election.
At the moment, we're getting very close to Booker's Law cut-off: whoever is ahead six month before the election tends to win it. So far, it doesn't look good, and with recent events, it doesn't look as if the Tories are going to make it.
As we get closer to the election, Miliband must be feeling more and more secure, so much so that we're not hearing anything from him about a referendum. This has become private Tory grief.
Looking at this pragmatically, the chances of a 2017 referendum are receding. But, if not then, when? The next window of opportunity would seem to be 2022, and even that requires a lot of things to come together.
Failing a referendum, we are looking at what could loosely be called the "UKIP model" – where Farage's party thinks it can get enough people into Westminster to hold the balance of power, and force the party in government (presumably the Tories) into taking us out of the EU.
In the meantime, we suffer five years of Labour, while – one assumes - the Conservatives backbenchers tear themselves apart.
But even if the "UKIP model" had a chance of working, it could not happen in a hurry. We are, thus, no closer to leaving the EU. In fact, the whole idea of withdrawing seems to be receding, almost to vanishing point. There is no satisfactory end game in sight, and no play that brings us closer to an exit.
This morning, David Cameron on Sky News Sunrise
articulated the conundrum. "The fundamental point", he said, is this - the next election - is going to be a straight choice. Do you want Labour in power, who haven't learnt the lessons of the past, or do you want the Conservatives to continue with our plan?"
Responding to Mr Reckless's claims that his promised renegotiation of Britain's EU membership would not deliver real reform, Mr Cameron said: "He can say what he likes, but the truth is if you want that 'in-out' referendum on Europe - and I think Mark Reckless does - if you go to UKIP you make it less likely that you will get it, because you will end up with Ed Miliband in Downing Street, Labour in office, and they won't give you a referendum".
That's the perplexing thing. All those who are so quick to discount Mr Cameron's referendum don't seem to have any credible alternative. We are in the land of aspiration, with a timescale stretching to infinity. And that, to me, is not an improvement.
There ought to be a law against it.
Monday 29 September 2014
Conservative MPs who defect to the UKIP should be treated "with great respect", says Owen Paterson. He also said the party had to make it clear to MPs tempted to defect that "protest will not get you what you want".
Asked on Sky News how many more Tory MPs might defect after Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless he said: "I have no idea", adding: "They are misguided sadly. I think we should be respectful of their decisions - they have set a new constitutional precedent of standing down unlike Shaun Woodward and Quentin Davies who just pushed off to the Labour party".
Mr Paterson went on to say: "They are setting themselves up to be voted back which one has to respect and I think we should treat all those who are currently not supporting us with great respect. But we also have to confront the fact that frankly they are wrong".
"We have to politely point out to people – many of whom are good, sensible Tories – who are minded to support UKIP, that they are mistaken. We have to make really clear why they are mistaken in a polite, logical and measured manner and get them back".
He also hit out at Mr Reckless' suggestion that the UK could curb immigration by leaving the EU. "When you see Mark Reckless saying getting out of the EU would solve it, I'm afraid his facts are wrong". He pointed out that Switzerland and Norway have higher immigrant populations than the UK, despite not being EU members.
Asked if he might defect, Paterson says: "It's absolutely laughable. How am I going to deliver (my) agenda through any other organisation apart from the Conservative party?"
Monday 29 September 2014
While Mr Carswell might have the approval of his voters, it seems that Mr Reckless isn't getting the same treatment. Instead, he has been forced to abandon plans for a walkabout in Rochester with Farage, after facing a hostile reception from local media and angry Tory activists, then having to escape through the side door of a pub.
He also got a rough ride from Tory chairman Grant Shapps. In Birmingham, Shapps told the Conference, "We have been betrayed. Every Conservative in this hall, and everyone you represent: We all know individual MPs don't succeed on their own. They do so by standing on the shoulders of others. Your shoulders".
Shapps added: "People who volunteered for Mr Reckless, they supported him as a Conservative. People who pounded the streets, they supported him as a Conservative. People who donated money from their own pockets, who worked tirelessly for him, they supported him as a Conservative. They did so in good faith".
However, the former Tory MP insists he was trying to "keep faith with my constituents and keep my promises to them", but his experience raises the interesting possibility that he won't get re-elected, making his gesture a career-ending move.
This is not a prediction, by the way – just an observation. We have yet to see any local opinion polls, and it is always possible that Mr Reckless is wildly popular and will romp home under his new colours.
But there is also the possibility that defections cut short promising careers. This might dampen the ardour of potential copycats, and stem what some hope is becoming a major political realignment.
Instead, we might be looking at a high water mark, making Mr Carswell a very lonely man in Parliament, and cutting short a political revolution. And, in a topsy-turvy world, we could even have David Cameron campaigning for Britain to leave the EU – or not.
Whichever way the dice falls, though, politics just got a little bit more interesting.
Sunday 28 September 2014
Modern conservatism is not about dealing with UKIP, says David Davis. It's about returning to core values, and promoting policies to help conservative supporters.
He's right in one sense – that the Tories will never win an argument with UKIP. That party operates on an elemental level that has 2,000 supporters chanting "UKIP! UKIP!" in the manner of a football crowd. It could just as easily have been "Hail Victory!"
On the other hand, there is that other political strain – conservatism. And real conservatives can do something that UKIP can never do. Individually and collectively, they can develop policy, including – in the fullness of time – a credible exit plan from the EU.
With that in mind, I was asked recently to pen some observations about the Farage Party, and was able to suggest that the essence of UKIP is negativity. Members know what they don't like, and are united in mutual detestation of the things they abhor.
Beyond this stultifying negativity, though, they have no idea what they actually want, and could not even being to unite around common objectives. There is no common ground, no ideology that could help bind them into a political force. They agree on how much they hate certain things, but there is nothing at all to define UKIP as a political party.
Thus, UKIP may hate the EU, and indeed they are keen to express that hatred at every opportunity. But while the EU is often merely the EUSSR, when it isn't the Fourth Reich, the real hatred is reserved for the "political classes" who support it, the "LibLabCon" traitors, quislings and worse.
In terms of how real conservatives should deal with UKIP, therefore, the most obvious thing to do is accentuate the positives. Unlike UKIP, a real conservative has a vision of what society should be, what the nation should look like, and what is needed to achieve a fairer, better society for all.
As David Davis indicates, therefore, rather than attack UKIP, real conservatives should be stating their case more clearly. Over term, the leadership has betrayed its own membership, which is why so many Tories switched to UKIP in the first place, but this does not stop individuals holding the torch of real conservatism aloft.
Filling the gap is vitally necessary: even if UKIP did get power, it wouldn't know what to do with it. In the 20 years of its existence, it hasn't even been able to devise or publish a credible – or any – EU exit plan.
The reason for this strange absence, though, is highly revealing about the state of UKIP as a party. Even though it is effectively a one-man band dominated by Nigel Farage, at grass roots level it is disorganised bundle of embittered warring tribes.
Within this, it harbours a great secret of which few are aware, that Farage is in thrall to a hard core "Praetorian Guard". But they are not guardians of policy – rather they represent the reactionary inner core of UKIP which demands immediate, unilateral exit from the EU, the so-called "Ollivander" option.
To this sad, dysfunctional crew, the EU treaties are "illegal" and those who signed it are "traitors". Any idea of negotiation or agreement is an anathema. They would sooner see the British economy crash and burn, with ships rusting in port, than accept a deal with Brussels.
So powerful is this group within UKIP that Farage cannot dictate a rational exit plan. To do so would trigger massive splits and blood-letting on a scale not seen since 2001. Then, dissent over the leadership tore the party apart, and triggered the series of events that has cemented Farage in place as the Supreme Leader ever since.
Then, no one was interested in the internal politics of UKIP. Today, such a rupture would not be so private, and Farage knows full well how slender his grip on power really is. He cannot dictate policy because he dare not.
For real conservatives (as opposed to the ersatz Cameronian version), this gives them one of their most powerful weapons against UKIP. For historical reasons, the official Conservative Party is committed to supporting the prime minister's attempts to renegotiate a relationship with "Europe", but even Mr Cameron has acknowledged that those negotiations could fail.
In anticipation of that failure, real conservatives need to do something UKIP cannot – entertain a serious, wide-ranging debate of what a post-EU Britain would look like, and then produce a comprehensive exit plan, setting out the steps needed to make the vision of an independent sovereign Britain possible.
At the very least, such a plan would show up Mr Cameron's weakness. For, if there is a credible alternative to EU membership on the table, one where the UK can continue trading with its European partners and co-operate on issues of mutual interest, then it would be much harder for him to say he had won a good deal from Brussels.
What goes for an EU exit plan then has equal force with the vexed issue of immigration. Following the collapse of the BNP, Farage has quite deliberately reinvented his own party as BNP-lite, in a bid to attract the Labour supporters that might otherwise have gravitated to his competition.
But, to appeal to the racist tendency that marked out the BNP, Farage had to present the party as anti-immigration, his only policy being to pull up the drawbridge and let in a tiny number of people on license. His party thus invokes images of the white cliffs of Dover, of a fortress Britain that harks back to 1940 when the UK was isolated and the Hun was ranged across the Channel. This is the UKIP vision of heaven.
In making its pitch, UKIP is in fact exploiting a global problem. There is not a developed country in the world that is not under pressure from migration, and many less-developed countries are also suffering serious problems: one just needs to look at Turkey and the flood of Syrian refugees and Kurds that has crossed its border.
As for migration from central and eastern Europe, after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989 and the demolition of the iron curtain, does anyone think that, after nearly 50 years of separation, there was not going to be migratory pressure to the affluent West?
The EU aside, countries outside the EU, including Norway and Switzerland, have had to deal with massive inflows, and have had to deal with may of the same problems that we have had to confront.
Thus, while in the UK, migration level is 13 percent, in Norway it is 14.9 percent; in Switzerland it is 23 percent. In Australia, which is the poster child for UKIP's immigration policy, it stood at 6.2 million people (27.3 percent) in 2012, up from 4.7 million people in 2003 (23.6 percent).
Even outside the EU, therefore, we would have been troubled by the global wave of migration. In or out of the EU, the situation needs managing. UKIP has no answers to this – its immigration policy is as slender and as incoherent as its EU exit plan. Real conservatives, on the other hand, are in a position to host a genuine debate, on real answers to problems which so far has eluded the global community.
That is the singular difference between UKIP and real conservatives – answers. UKIP hasn't any, and has no ability to produce them, even though, over the next five years, its 24 MEPs will cost the British taxpayer nearly £140 million in salaries, overheads and expenses. For that money, all UKIP seems to be able to do is tell us what it doesn't want. Real conservatives, on the other hand, have the ability to answer the nation's needs.
Then, in one other issue above all else, the difference stands. While UKIP whinges about being in the EU, even the official Conservatives have outflanked them. They have promised an "in-out" referendum.
If UKIP members are genuine in their desire to leave the EU, then their options at the general election are obvious. But then they will have to confront reality: do they really want to get out of the EU, or do they enjoy hating it too much to want to leave? That is the choice they are going to have to make.
Sunday 28 September 2014
It says something for the climate change "crisis" that Booker is one of the few people still writing about the special meeting of the UN General Assembly in New York.
Apart from the Middle East, he writes, there can have been few more depressing places to be in the world than that meeting, last Tuesday, where an endless queue of world leaders, including Barack Obama and David Cameron, treated an increasingly soporific audience to leaden little appeals for humanity to take urgent action to halt global warming.
The purpose of this special meeting, summoned by that dim little nonentity Ban Ki-moon, was to issue a desperate last-minute call for a legally binding treaty in Paris next year, whereby they would all agree to save the planet through an 80 percent cut in those CO2 emissions, which are inseparable from almost all the activities of modern civilisation.
For days the usual cheerleaders, such as the BBC and Channel 4 News, had been beating the drum for this "historic" and "important" gathering. Hundreds of thousands of activists from all over the world, joined by Mr Ban in a baseball cap, on Sunday brought the streets of New York to a halt.
When the great day came, The Guardian
published a 43-page running blog, reporting all the speeches from the likes of some Bosnian telling us that his country has had more rain this year than in any for more than a century (did global warming really start that long ago?).
The President of Kiribati said, "I've been talking about climate change so long I've lost my voice", although he was still somehow able to explain that his tiny island nation in the middle of the Pacific is sinking beneath the waves, despite satellite studies showing that sea levels in the area have actually been falling.
As one speaker after another overran their allotted four minutes, even The Guardian
could not hide the fact that no one had anything new or interesting to say.
"The most powerful speech" apparently came from Leonardo DiCaprio, which recalled a claim made more than 20 years ago by that other Hollywood star, Robert Redford, when he said, on global warming, that it was "time to stop researching and to start acting". This prompted Richard Lindzen, the physicist and climate-change sceptic, to observe wryly that it seemed "a reasonable suggestion for an actor to make".
The biggest excitement of the day was the news flash from England that a gaggle of Greenpeace activists had hijacked a train carrying coal to a Nottinghamshire power station.
Part of the meeting's purpose was to demand that the world's richer nations must honour their pledge at Cancún in 2010 to contribute $100 billion a year to help poorer countries combat climate change. When The Guardian's
blog totted up the cash promised – and despite $5 million pledged by Luxembourg – there was nothing from Obama or Cameron.
Most notably absent among the 120 "heads of government" present were those from China and India, two of the biggest CO2 emitters in the world. And, of course, this conveyed precisely why Mr Ban's shindig was as much an empty charade as that far greater fiasco in Copenhagen in 2009, when it became evident that there will never be a global treaty, because the world’s fastest-developing nations, such as China and India, have never had any intention of signing one.
As he showed in his history of the great climate scare, The Real Global Warming Disaster
, published just before Copenhagen, the scientific basis for this scare was already falling apart, as temperatures were not rising as the computer models had predicted.
The real disaster from all this, he argued, was not the imagined apocalypse of the world frying, as ice caps melted and sea levels soared (thanks to Antarctica, there is more polar sea ice today than at any time since records began). It was the response of all those deluded politicians who had fallen for the scare.
Cameron may last week have drawn The Guardian's
contempt for repeating that boast that his is "the greenest government ever". But Britain is still stuck, not least thanks to Ed Miliband's ludicrous Climate Change Act, with a skewed and make-believe energy policy far more dangerous than most people realise.
Until our politicians wake up from this mad dream to think for themselves and pull us back from this suicidal course, we are doomed. As yet there is little sign of any such miracle bringing them back to the real world.
Saturday 27 September 2014
I am sure Mark Reckless thinks he's doing the right thing in joining Douglas Carswell. But, if there is to be any chance of having a referendum in 2017, then the preferred option must be a Conservative government.
If you do not believe Mr Cameron will deliver the goods, then presumably there must be some logic in destabilising the Conservative party, even if the short-term effect is to open the way for Mr Miliband. That, at least, will stop us losing a referendum – we simply won't get one.
Yet this is the man who told the Guardian late last month that he would be staying with the Tories to help David Cameron ensure he could deliver his promise of an EU referendum.
What is not clear, though, is where the end game lies - Helen Szamuely seems equally puzzled. Mr Reckless says he will retire as an MP and, following in the shoes of Mr Carswell, will stand for re-election. If he and Carswell survive, and then win again at the general, they will hold down former Conservative seats and thereby weaken the party further.
But if Mr Reckless says, "I want to get our country back", he is doing his very best to delay the process. But then, he tells us that he cannot keep his promise to control immigration as a Conservative, but could as a UKIP MP. This man is well named.