Over the last few weeks two bloggers in particular have been “having a go” at the United Kingdom Independence Party – and in particular that party’s public voice; Nigel Farage – a “campaign” to which I have, on occasions, inserted my own small input.
Nigel Farage has, for some time now, been calling for a referendum on this nation’s membership of the European Union with a view to ceasing said membership – yet has never, to my knowledge, addressed the matter of how this could be accomplished nor discussed the ramifications of said cessation.
The House of Commons Library has, today, published a “Research Paper” on “matters EU exit”, one which is quite comprehensive in its content if, albeit as I maintained, it initially appears a tad biased.
Are not the subjects – and questions – raised in the HoC Research Paper not those that Ukip and Farage should have been addressing some time ago? If a political party – and one that maintains it is now the fourth main political party – wishes to suggest a course of action which affects the future of our nation; should it not be more forthcoming, ie presenting its arguments in greater detail?
It is all very well for Ukip and Farage to prattle on about self-government, independence and democracy but one has to ask how any alternative government that believes in democracy still wishes to adhere to the existing system of representative democracy. Do they understand the meaning of the word “democracy”? Obviously not – otherwise they would have addressed that particular point, and all the related points raised in the HoC Research Paper, dealt with them; and presented their conclusions to the public to whom they are appealing.
While the same accusation can be laid at the Lib/Lab/Con, this begs the question to Ukip that, behaving in the same way as the others and thus ducking the detail while relying on generalities and “spin”, on what basis do they present themselves as a different political party?
On the point about “generalities” and “spin”, while this practice is continued by the big three main parties – plus a “pretender” of that group – how are the public to make an informed decision, come the opportunity of a referendum on EU membership?
As and when any referendum is put the the British electorate, both sides of the argument will undoubtedly put before the electorate their own “version” of the pros and cons. Is it not time that agreement was reached by all political parties and those of the “In” and “Out” sides, that a “fair” and “reasoned” document was produced which would allow the electorate to be informed and educated – and thus allowing them the opportunity to decide their political and democratic future? In Switzerland, when a referendum ballot paper is issued, it is accompanied by a “resume” of the arguments both for and against. Why doesn’t/cannot that happen here?
Do not those who consider themselves “Honourable” – and I was going to add the word “principled”, but I digress again – have an obligation to present just the facts to those they are supposed to represent, so that that section of our society can make an “informed” choice.?