A recent article in the Independent on Nigel Farage prompts me to offer my ha’porth.
Initially appealing, I felt refreshed by his aggressive approach towards both the UK and European establishments but reviewing his performance a while later, certain facets of the man remind me of self when I naively sought a Parliamentary seat in my very early twenties.
I was a mouthy little bugger with far too much attitude. I was impatient with the status quo. I criticised with abandon. I was a master of assumption (fuelled by preconceptions and unsupported by either knowledge or understanding). I enthusiastically recommended a need for change. I arrogantly assumed I was to be the voice of the future and I loftily condemned the establishment and established practices.
Sound familiar to anyone else’s youth?
Yet in reality, I possessed neither sufficient substance nor adequate comprehension of principles to offer viable alternatives to the established policies which I knocked so freely - and for far too long, my youthful arrogance hid from me the catalogue of my shortcomings.
Nowadays of course, such faults and deficiencies almost appear a prerequisite in certain types of politician - particularly when they’re in opposition. As thank heavens did I (just in time to avoid inflicting my immaturity on the nation), such people could benefit from recognising the imperative to constantly learn about, and sympathetically relate to, the conditions and needs of an electorate, rather than blithely assume that one is already sufficiently accomplished to properly represent their best interests.
As a former member of my school debating society, I learned long ago that a key requirement of debate is to nurture a mind open enough to learn from any worthwhile points which may be made by the opposition and thereafter, to cunningly re-present them as long-standing elements of one’s own glossary of beliefs.
On the other side of the coin, one must also learn that what might at first appear a valid opposition point, may frequently turn out to be quite the reverse.
In such instances, the assertions are usually made by those with immutably biased views, who cynically adopt any spurious ‘argument’ they think may help debunk the opinion of others – all this in the hope that if presented with sufficient vigour and confidence, their alternative will unquestionably be accepted as the way forward.
Although I voted UKIP back in the European elections, it is in this latter role which my now more enlightened opinion perceives the over-confident approach of Nigel Farage.
The man also appears a touch too inflammatory and jingoistic in my opinion; and bearing in mind where such tendencies have inhabited the minds of continental leaders in the past, this could be construed as vaguely sinister.
When making assertions, particularly when addressing issues relating to the EU, Farage’s apparent reluctance to suggest any alternative proposals, let alone detail of them, leads me now to add a lack of forward planning to my perception of his character and at worst, a total lack of substance
Yes, I do sense that the EU is, in effect, almost a modern day attempt at domination by the leaders of a nation which undeniably came second twice during the last century. (and I stress ‘leaders’ here - for it was initially the jingoistic aggression of their earlier leaders which drove those much maligned people to the two inevitable defeats).
And yes, back in the 70’s I did vote for the Common Market - what later became known as the EEC and is now the EU.
But no, I did NOT vote for a total European fiscal and political federation; and that is where I honestly believe the current arrangements will ultimately lead – so I agree with that element of Nigel Farage’s approach.
However, and unlike Mr Farage, I no longer believe that we should leave the EU completely, for I think that would be a route to disaster.
I do however believe that it’s time that we made a stand to firmly renegotiate our position and withdraw from some of the unnecessarily onerous EU legislation and directives which impinge on many facets of our independence.
Basically, I now believe the EU needs us as much as we need them - but I should perhaps qualify this by saying I believe our role in the EU should be primarily trade related and not too much more.
We have managed fairly well thank you, over the last few centuries, under legal and parliamentary systems which have become the model for many other countries. Yes, our systems definitely need reviewing and up-dating but they certainly aren’t broken - so if that’s the case, don’t fix ‘em, just tweak ‘em.
My belief therefore, does not extend to subjugation of our legal options and national culture to the whim of Brussels and the rest of Europe. We are an island here and therefore we differ from most other EU countries - Cyprus excepted of course; and given recent financial events on that island, I think there may be a lesson in there somewhere!
Farage appears to advocate a five-year ban on immigration and uses a departure from the EU as the only way we may control our borders.
Again, I find myself at variance with his view; for whilst I do believe we should definitely have more control on immigration, we would deprive our future of enormous benefits if we were to comprehensively deny access to all - particularly those who have something to offer in return for coming here. Par example, it could be said that our NHS could not survive without the current input of immigrant doctors, nurses and trainees.
Outwardly appealing, Farage’s wish for abolition of employers’ contributions is not feasible - too much revenue is generated in the present climate of austerity and one would therefore have to ask what would replace that income. A tax on children perhaps?
His wish for ‘Life to mean life’ is an easy proposal with which to agree (and many of us tend toward that thinking); but again, he doesn’t detail how this would be funded.
The cost of keeping criminals in prison is astronomic and the alternative punishments favoured by the “Hang ‘em and flog ‘em” brigade are precluded by the HRA and other such legislation - not all of the sometimes PC provisions of which seem justifiable in light of statistics showing both crime by new offenders and the recidivism of established criminals.
On other points raised,
“Our traditional values have been undermined.”
I tend to agree with this but suggest this may be down more to global changes in attitude, rather than just EU legislation- although I’m sure the latter has played its part.
“Children are taught to be ashamed of our past.”
I do not think this slant is entirely wrong, for with respect to the history teachers of my day, we were taught only the bits they wanted us to learn and forgot about (for instance) our invention of the concentration camp during the Boer war. Just as European youth is taught about the Holocaust and Germany’s culpability in two world wars, so I believe our children should be taught that all was not completely rosy in our greedy annexation of other countries and their resources (both natural and human).
BUT, whilst the bad should never be glossed over, our children should also be taught the better side of our respective histories.
“Multiculturalism has split our Society.”
Indeed it has - but not the principle, so much as the way we have allowed it to develop. True multiculturalism should embrace integration and not the development of what have in effect become urban ghettos - and that’s largely down to our attitudes and prejudices which have encouraged immigrants to cluster together in certain areas of our country, rather than ‘spread the mix’, so to speak.
The latter is of course indirectly encouraged as a result of inadequate entry requirements related to language-learning, non-acceptance of the status quo and the tolerance of too much radical behaviour by political and religious activists.
The other points raised related to Grammar Schools and ending the smoking ban on allocated rooms, Public Houses, Clubs and Hotels – and of course, referenda on the Hunting ban.
In my view, and with the exception of Grammar Schools, these are relatively minor topics when set against the impact of the other points covered.
Finally though, “Political Correctness is stifling Free Speech.”
I fear it often does but then again, the older I become, the more I believe that all legislation and control should be required to properly fit within the general principle of ‘What appears reasonable in all the circumstances.’
And in my opinion, neither Political Correctness, nor the bulk of Nigel Farage’s published views fulfill that requirement.
