Frequently asked questions.

 

Who are we?

Why do we oppose the European Union?

Isn't the European 'parliament' democratically elected?

Wouldn't Europe be less stable without the European Union?

Why do we oppose the Euro?

Why do we oppose the Welsh Assembly?

Won't we be worse off if we leave the E.U.?

Isn't a federal Europe inevitable?

What can I do to stop this?


Who are we?

 

The United Kingdom Independence Party is a non-racist, non-sectarian, inclusive party, drawing membership from all parts of British society. We believe that Britain should formally withdraw its membership of the EU and replace it with a trade agreement, which is what we thought we were signing up for in the first place. This will enable us to run our own affairs without interference from unelected, unaccountable bureaucrats in Brussels and Strasbourg.

 

Click HERE to read the 2005 general election manifesto.  Get Adobe Reader HERE.

 

Back to Top

Why do we oppose the European Union?

 

We believe that the European Union is undemocratic and damaging to Britain's interests. In 1975 the British people voted almost two to one in favour of our continued membership of the Common Market as it was then called. They were told that it was nothing more than a common trading agreement and that it would not effect Britain's sovereignty. No mention was made of the plans for a federal Europe, even though our politicians at the time, most notably Prime Minister Edward Heath, knew that this was the eventual aim.

 

For thirty years successive governments have ignored the views of the British people and have taken us further and further towards full integration. Not only have they concealed the truth from us, they have continually lied in order to propagate the myth that E.U. membership is in our interests.

 

Because of our E.U. membership we have lost control of our fishing industry, our agriculture, the ability to give financial aid to our industry when it is required, the ability to control immigration and are subject to over thirty thousand rules, regulations and directives which effect the lives of every British citizen.

 

As recently as February 2001 Judge Bruce Morgan said in the famous "Metric Martyrs" case that European law superceded British law and that Britain lost its sovereignty in 1973 [when Britain joined the E.U.]. Britain contributes £20bn per year to the E.U. We recoup £9bn per year of that in various grants, so our net contributions to the E.U. are £11bn per year. That equates to £30m per day, money which could be put to better use domestically. Many will argue that the millions of pounds we receive in grants from the E.U. justifies our membership. The truth is that we are only getting our own money back. Even then we have to grovel to the E.U. in order to get it and match it pound for pound with our own money. In short - we bake the cake and have to fight over the crumbs!

 

Back to Top

Isn't the European 'parliament' democratically elected?

 

Yes, the European 'parliament' is democratically elected by the people of Europe. What most people don't know though, because our politicians and media don't tell them, is that the European 'parliament' has very little, if any, effective power. No government or cabinet is chosen from these elected representatives. It follows then that there is no effective opposition. 

 

The real power lies with the European Commission. It is they who are responsible for the flood of rules, regulations and directives spilling out of the E.U. These are then passed to the 'parliament' to be ratified. So many of these rules, regulations and directives are placed before the 'parliament' that there is simply not enough time to adequately debate them all. On one occasion, MEP's were asked to ratify 187 new regulations in just one hour, and they did! That's less than 20 seconds per regulation. So within the space of 1 hour, these 187 new regulations became part of the laws of 15 countries without any debate or amendment.

 

The former Commission President, Romano Prodi, once stated that he would like to see greater use of regulations and less use of directives. This is because directives are binding as to the result to be achieved but leaves the member state to decide on the method of achieving that result. Regulations on the other hand are laid down by the commission and are binding and directly applicable in all member states. One word crops up consistently in many of these regulations and directives. that word is 'irrevocable'. Once they are accepted they are effective in perpetuity. No national government can change or rescind them. That is undemocratic, and that is why Britain must remove itself from the E.U.

   

Back to Top

Wouldn't Europe be less stable without the European Union?

 

Many people believe that Western Europe has been free of conflict since 1945 because of the creation of the European Union and its predecessors. The politicians of E.U. countries continue to peddle this line in order to add legitimacy to their Federalist dream.

 

The truth is that peace has existed in Europe primarily because of NATO. The countries of Western Europe, Scandinavia and North America signed the North Atlantic Treaty whose basic premise is that attack of one member nation is considered as an attack on them all. Therefore any nation or force intent on attacking a NATO member would have to deal with the military might of the United States.

 

One other point that the politicians never explain is just which European nation do they think would have started any conflict since World War Two.

 

Back to Top


 

Why do we oppose the Euro?

 

On January 1st 2002, 12 of the 15 member nations of the European Union ditched their national currencies in favour of the Euro. They have taken an irrevocable step. Their economies are now in the hands of the European Central Bank in Frankfurt. The E.C.B. will dictate to those nations, their interest rates, pensions, borrowing etc. This means that individual nations cannot adjust these rates when their economies require it. They are tied into "one size fits all" policies.

 

None of the 12 countries that joined the Euro have ever asked their people whether they wanted it or not. Only Denmark and Sweden have ever had referendums on the Euro and they both rejected it. The undemocratic nature of the E.U. means that the Danes and Swedes can expect more referendums until they vote correctly, i.e. in favour of the Euro. The other country not to join in the first wave is the United kingdom.

 

A single currency (or European Monetary Union) means a single economy. A single economy means a single government. A single government means a single United States of Europe.

 

You have been warned!

 

Back to Top


Why do we oppose the Welsh Assembly?

 

In 1997 the Welsh electorate were given a referendum asking whether they wanted a Welsh Assembly. Due to a low turnout, just 25.2% of the electorate voted in favour, so it doesn't exactly have the overwhelming support of the Welsh people. There are three reasons why UKIP opposes the Welsh Assembly.

 

The first reason is that the Welsh Assembly was created as part of the E.U.'s plan, in collaboration with our government, to set up a system of regionalised government. Indeed, the full title of the E.U. is "The European Union of the Regions". The system involves dividing the present 15 member nations into 111 regions, 12 of them being in Britain. Regional Government has already been established in 4 British regions, these being Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and London. England is due to be split into 8 regions under this system. Maps of the regions published by the E.U. name only the regions and make no mention of England. Wales is now officially known as Region UKL. It is clear from this policy that the aim of the E.U. is 'divide and conquer'.

 

The second reason is that the assembly is an extra unnecessary tier of government. Wales alone has seen the number of civil servants increase by 3000 since the Assembly opened in 1999. More politicians and more government means that the people are increasingly moved further away from those in power. This is ironic, as the Assembly was supposedly set up to bring government closer to the people of Wales.

 

The third reason is that it is quite simply incompetent. The assembly is run by third rate politicians doing a third rate job. They don't even know how much their new 'ivory tower' in Cardiff Bay will cost. The new assembly building is still just a very expensive hole in the ground, a hole which has so far cost Welsh tax-payers £12 million. The present cost of the new building is estimated at £55 million, but that figure is for the building itself. Fixtures and fittings are likely to push the price close to £100. Administrative costs for the assembly have risen from £17 million in 1999 to £80 million in 2002.

Rhodri Morgan's promised 'bonfire of the quangos' never happened. In fact there are more quangos in Wales today than when Mr. Morgan made his promise in 1999.

 
Back to Top

Won't we be worse off if we leave the E.U.?

 

There is a myth that Britain will lose trade and become isolated if we don't adopt the Euro and become fully integrated into the European Union. A few facts, however, soon help to dispel this myth.

 

Trade with Europe did not start fifty years ago when the concept of a united Europe was first envisaged. Goods were crossing the English Channel even before the Romans arrived. The E.U. didn't invent it.

 

Britain imports more from other E.U. nations than we export to them. Are we supposed to believe that these nations will 'cut off their nose to spite their face' if we withdraw our E.U. membership. Will Germany stop sending us their cars, will wine no longer come from France, will other goods stop coming from Spain, Italy or Greece etc. Of course they won't. This of course works both ways, so they will continue to buy our goods.

 

Some say that jobs will be lost if we withdraw. In fact, just 9% of British jobs are directly linked to trade with the E.U. The truth is that thousands of jobs have been lost because of E.U. policies. Jobs have disappeared from the fishing industry due to crippling regulation and the loss of our fishing grounds to other E.U. nations, notably Spain. Thousands of jobs have disappeared from the motor industry because E.U. regulations prevented our government providing financial aid when it was required. The agricultural industry is in tatters because of the Common Agriculture Policy which is heavily biased towards continental farmers, most notably, the French. When Foot and Mouth Disease broke out in Britain in February 2001, vaccination of animals was prevented by E.U. policies. Our government now has to get permission from the E.U. to give financial aid to our farmers. We import 20% of our milk from France while our dairy farmers literally pour milk down the drain because their yield exceeds their quota.

 

The truth is that E.U. membership is not necessary to trade with it. Norway and Switzerland, two countries immersed geographically but not politically within the E.U. enjoy trade with it. Indeed, they are both prosperous countries due, in no small part, to being able to run their own affairs. We trade with the United States, but no-one is suggesting that we have to become the 51st state in order to do so. Perhaps, though, the one fact that really blows the myth is that Mexico has a free trade agreement with the E.U. So if a non E.U. country on the other side of the world can have this, why does anyone believe that Britain cannot.

 

Finally, few people are aware that there is a precedent for leaving the E.U. In Greenland's 1972 referendum, a majority voted against joining the E.U. but owing to the election result in Denmark, Greenland ended up joining the Common Market. For a people whose economy and entire survival is inextricably linked with the resources of the sea, it was untenable to have all administration managed from Europe. This groundswell of opinion generated a movement against E.U. membership and on February 1st 1985 - after the home rule system had been established - a referendum released Greenland from E.U. membership.

 

Back to Top

Isn't a federal Europe inevitable?

 

A federal Europe is not inevitable. The countries of continental Europe have always had closer cultural and political ties with each other than they have had with Britain. Federalism, therefore, is probably easier for those countries to accept, and represents less change socially and politically. We don't oppose a federal Europe, just Britain's place in it. 

Britain's membership of a federal Europe certainly isn't inevitable if the British electorate reject those politicians who persist with the notion that E.U. membership is in our best interests. At the present time, no British government is bound by the decisions of its predecessors. Our Parliament simply has to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act and it's subsequent amendments. This would enable us to determine our own destiny, and put British governance back where it belongs - in the hands of the British people.

 

Back to Top


What can I do to stop this?

 

Join The United Kingdom Independence Party and campaign for Britain's withdrawal from the E.U. To join the party click HERE.

 

Back to Top