Nick Clegg’s forked tongue

Hmm.

The Deputy Prime Minister, a supporter of continued EU membership, said he was “relishing” the chance to debate Ukip and Tory sceptics.

“I’m relishing the opportunity to make that patriotic case because I think the view represented by Ukip and large parts of the Conservative Party and Paul Sykes is a betrayal of the national interest and an unpatriotic approach,” Mr Clegg told a press conference in London.

Leaving the EU would “leave many people poorer, it would leave us more vulnerable, it would leave us weaker as a country and it would put many people out of work,” Mr Clegg said.

“I can’t possibly see why anyone thinks that that is something that in any way represents the long-term national interest.”

Let us at least do the Deputy Prime Minister the honour of taking him seriously here. That is, not reject this as just political boilerplate from someone previously a Eurocrat.

The point is that we in UKIP are precisely the people insisting that there is indeed a national interest, one that at times and in places will differ from what is the interest of all on the entire continent. And it is that very point, about the national interest, which leads us to reject rule by the bureaucrats of 28 nations in favour of rule by politicians elected from among our own. On the pure and simple basis that at least we can get rid of our own bastards if we should so wish.

10 thoughts on “Nick Clegg’s forked tongue”

  1. As I understand no any EU politician/employee who speaks against the EU will either have any benefits such as pension or future pensions stopped.

    Thie would explain a lot of the pro EU talk by these people. Also such benefits are taxed at a standard low rate of EU tax and not the local rates of the country where they are received.

  2. And I say to the gallows with both sides. The individual interest trumps the national and international “interest”. I don’t want UKIP lording it over me just because they think they can take power in a smaller constituency than Europe.

  3. Hmm.

    Is it a category error to assume that “in the national interest” is congruent with “patriotic”? Clearly, it doesn’t apply the other way round. Displaying the national flag is seen as patriotic but has minimal bearing on the “national interest”.

    That means it falls to the Lib Dems to make the case for remaining in the EU, he said.

    Well, if they do that as effectively as they make the cases for the other things they believe in, we might as well leave now.

  4. “it would put many people out of work” – the usual scaremongering, but have any Euro-realists come up with a defend-able figure for the number of people out or work / jobs not created as a result of EU trade barriers, regulations, etc?

    It’s the sort of killer stat that we need to get out there to repeat over and over.

  5. Well done Vir Cantium because that’s exactly what I’m referring to when talking about narratives.
    The narrative “jobs to be lost if leaving the EU” is almost impossible to rebut because you’re starting the argument by accepting the “jobs lost”, then arguing about numbers – which for most listeners move swiftly to incomprehensible.
    A “jobs lost through continued membership”, any number, make one up, gets the opposition having to concede the “jobs lost” proposition to argue the numbers. Hence the principle of membership costs jobs becomes established. And people vote on principles, not numbers.

  6. These liars are regularly on the QT & other BBC type shows saying how keen they are on “debating” with UKIP. They don’t ever object to UKIP being excluded from these same programmes.

    When UKIP in Scotland ran a public debate on global warming (Scotland has its own climate change act, even more PC than Westminster’s) we invited all 129 MSPs, who had unanimously voted for the CC Act.

    Not a single one of the 129 “relished” or was even willing to debate. None of the parties was willing to put up a single speaker (though we did have Jim Sillars, a senior SNP supporter who is a sceptic).

    Former LD leader Charles Kennedy also recently issued a challenge to UKIP to debate the EU. He has yet to reply to an invitation to do so.

    Open debate is a necessary and perhaps sufficient condition for a free society – the BBC & Clegg know this, which is why they refuse to do it.

  7. Yes JamesV, and the individual interest is to have control devolved downwards, not upwards to ever more remote heights without the permission of the individuals involved.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *