Posted on 11/23/2014 10:59:23 AM PST by DanMiller
This article is republished with permission from Enza Ferreri's blog. But first,
My introduction
Please consider the similarities and differences among the UK Independence Party (UKIP), the Republican Party and the "Tea Parties," with emphasis on the Republican and Tea Parties. Here are two videos which are well worth watching, comparing and contrasting before reading the article:
First, a video by Bill Whittle on principles, speaking and behaving consistently with them.
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UCyYDI-RKps]
Next, a UKIP video on its recent electoral success:
[youtube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LXIftnEO128]
Here is Enzi Ferreri's article about UKIP. I have used bold face type to indicate what I consider the portions most pertinent to the comparisons I am asking readers to consider.
***********************
Yesterday the UK Independence Party (UKIP) has gained its second seat in Britain's House of Commons, the lower House of Parliament, with Mark Reckless elected in the Rochester and Strood constituency, in Kent. The victory was obtained through a comfortable, though not dramatic, majority of 2,930 votes over the Conservative runner-up Kelly Tolhurst, a majority which many say may easily be lost again at the May 2015 general election for the UK Parliament.
This, and especially UKIP's first Member of Parliament, Douglas Carswell, elected on 9 October 2014 in Clacton-on-Sea, Essex, with a landslide of 60% of the vote, are historical events.
Both seats were won in by-elections necessitated when Mr Carswell and Mr Reckless, already MPs for those consituencies for the Conservative Party, defected to UKIP and left their seats, which they later regained with their new party.
For good or for bad, UKIP, for all its limitations, is changing the British political landscape forever.
Its limitations are a lack of long-term clarity about the objectives the party wants to achieve. "What does it stand for?" is a different question from "Whom does it stand for?".
The answer to the latter is obvious: the great number of British people of middle and working classes who have seen their country transformed beyond recognition in the relatively short time of a few decades, in the most evident way by unrestricted immigration with concomitant multiculturalism and Islamisation, but also in a less macroscopic way by other cultural developments introduced by the New Left, like same-sex marriage, sexualisation of children and what the press calls "political correctness gone mad". [Emphasis added -- DM.]
In short, socio-communist agenda goals tacitly or overtly accepted and promoted by the misnamed Conservative Party as well as the most obvious culprits, Labour and LibDems.
The people who are worried by all these recent phenomena and even more scared by the main political parties' inaction at best and collusion at worst regarding them are aboslutely right. What they don't necessarily have, after many years of media's and education system's propaganda, is a clear idea of what caused them and where to start if we want to stop, let alone reverse, these momentum-gathering trends. [Emphasis added -- DM.]
To know that is the job of politicians. Hence, the question "what to stand for" needs to be answered. It's not enough to be against the EU, mass immigration and the LibLabCon.
Here the UKIP represents vast numbers of the electorate even too well. Like them, it senses the problems but doesn't grasp the solution. [Emphasis added -- DM.]
Irish statesman and political thinker Edmund Burke (1729–1797), himself an MP in the House of Commons for many years, made an important distinction between representatives and delegates.
In his famous Speech to the Electors at Bristol at the Conclusion of the Poll of 1774, he explained that delegates exclusively carry out the instructions of those who elected them, therefore only reflecting the views and wishes of their constituents.
Representatives, on the other hands, are trustees. Voters have entrusted them to act in their best interest, which doesn't necessarily coincide with what the voters want. Moreover, the representative makes choices on the basis of the common interest, and not just of those who elected him. He considers his constituents' views but doesn't have to abide by their wishes. He follows his conscience. The representative, thus, having knowledge and experience that his constituents generally lack, uses his judgement to form an opinion on what's in the public interest, and acts accordingly. [Emphasis added -- DM.]
MPs, Burke said, should be representatives and not delegates.
So, in Bristol he proclaimed (The Works of the Right Honourable Edmund Burke, Volume I, London: Henry G. Bohn, 1854, pp. 446–8):
... it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiased opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.... [Emphasis added -- DM]In these days of rampant populism it's important to realise that the old clique of politicians, in Britain as elsewhere in the West, hasn't acted wrongly so much because it's gone against people's will as because it's gone against people's interest.You choose a member, indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of Parliament.
In fact, in many cases the political class has given people what they wanted - an unsustainable welfare state - in its own interest, which was to get elected, but has gone against their interest by creating an unprecedented national debt of astronomic proportions that may bankrupt the state and will burden future generations. [Emphasis added -- DM.]
UKIP doesn't seem to be different from the other parties in this respect. It doesn't like to tell people uncomfortable truths, as can be seen by the compromises it has already started making, for example by promising that millions of European immigrants can remain in Britain after an EU exit, by its soft stance on Islam, and similar. [Emphasis added -- DM.]
UKIP wants to appear politically correct. [Emphasis added -- DM.]
Its policies are fluid, constantly changed. Its representatives are often caught saying things against party policy. When put under scrutiny, they often don't know what to say. [Emphasis added -- DM.]
All this is not unique to them, but can be found in other parties. But that's exactly it. Where is the difference? Where is a long-term plan for effective change? If UKIP knew the answer, it wouldn't have remained for a very long time without a manifesto, including during the 2014 European elections campaign.
In the end, leaving the European Union is not the ultimate solution. What will UKIP change after that? What about the Third World immigrants, who are an immensely greater problem than Bulgarians and Romanians? What about Islamisation of Britain? What about the erosion of Christian values? The ideological dominance of the Left? [Emphasis added -- DM.]
UKIP is a breath of fresh air in the stagnant political situation of the UK, but air, though essential, is not the only necessity of life.
***********************
My request:
Having watched the videos linked above and read Ms. Ferreri's article, what do you think? For example,
Can a politician who says what he means, means what he says and behaves consistently get elected and, if so, will his chances of reelection diminish, increase or remain about the same if he does what he said he would do?
Do we want "delegates" who do what their constituents think they want, or "representatives" who do what they think best? Has Obama done too much of the latter?
Where should our Congress Critters draw their lines between being delegates and representatives?
Should members of the House of Representatives, "the People's House," draw lines different from those drawn by Senators?
What he is arguing is flawed.
That is, the very name of UKIP “UK Independence Party” is its purpose: they do not seek “rule” so much as the “ability to rule”.
That is, the UK has for a long time been lurching towards rule by unelected bureaucrats in Brussels. It has surrendered so much of its sovereignty that their very nation is at risk. As things stand, if Brussels ordered them to wear Lederhosen, scuba flippers and pink tutus, both Labour and the Tories wound bend at the knee to oblige.
The author frets, “Well, what is the rest of UKIPs agenda?”, but this question is moot unless their agenda is that of the UK, not one ordered on them by Brussels.
In effect, they are a slave trying to earn their freedom. While they are still enslaved, it doesn’t matter to fret about how they might use their freedom.
The implication, in both cases, that UKIP, or the slave, aren’t ready for freedom, because they have not announced their plans of what they intend to do with it.
To me UKIP, is like Solidarnosc in Poland, they were united in opposition to the ruling order, although among themselves they had a wide range of political differences.
Nothing is more obvious than that these debts will be renounced.
When and how remain unclear, but the fact that the note holders will get screwed is written in stone.
The UKIP runs on getting out of the EU. While this is a popular prospect amongst many in the UK, what does this mean?
No nation has ever left the EU, so again, what does this mean? The EU is not one unifying document. The basis for the EU started in the 1950’s with different treaties and agreements between European nations. How far back does this ‘leaving’ the EU go?
One of the positive results of the EU for the UK, is the prestige and political power the UK has as a leading member of the EU, that it would not have otherwise. The UK has an economic advantage over other members in the EU, as all business is conducted in English.
I did a study abroad program a few years ago for my M.B.A in the UK and France. We discussed this situation with a professor who worked for the EU. He said, “Is the EU in a crisis? Yes, but that is the natural state for the EU”.
Britain is at a crossroads with regards to the EU. The choice isn’t between maintaining the status quo and leaving, it is between becoming an isolated holdout in an otherwise fully integrated and sovereign superstate, or leaving. Any influence we might have had in the EU as it once was will vanish unless we are prepared to be subsumed by the collective. Britain can salvage its influence and its sovereignty by leaving th EU.
You still haven’t answered “What does that mean”?
Which parts of the EU does Britain propose they will leave?
How does she do this?
I understand the emotions, just not the mechanics.
As to its influence, Britain has more influence as a senior member of the EU as she would on her own. The EU’s economic influence on the rest of the world is much greater than the UK has.
The EU is Germany.
We will have to negotiate a bilateral treaty with the EU along the same lines that Switzerland does. Britain has more weft than Switzerland does, yet they do OK and they have more ftas than we do. Britain will eventually lose its individual influence anyway if it carries on down this path of ever closer union and she will be subsumed, and will have no more influence on the world stage than Texas.
I wouldn't say that. Yes, Germany is a very important part of the EU. They are probably the most financially secure of any of the member states.
The problem with the EU as a central governing body, is they have no power to actually enforce much of what they want.
Back to the original discussion, as to if Ukip will garner enough power to get the UK out of the EU, I'm still not sure how, or what they will get out of.
The UK was smart enough not to join the monetary aspect of the EU, but I'm not sure what else they wish to leave.
Still, it is interesting to watch.
Perhaps.
Still not sure what parts of the EU Britain will leave.From an American perspective, I see UKIP like the resurgent Republican party. Always telling us what is bad with the Democrats, but never actually changing any of the policies. It's like the same shell game.
I hope UKIP is different, but until we see it, it's the same game and the people are always the loser in the shell game.
Ukip is made up of people who genuinely believe in the cause they are fighting. The career politicians who like the taste of power are either Tories or Labour. Farage is also a big advocate of direct democracy, local rule and Swiss style referendums, as well as rights of recall for local electorates. He is a genuine agent of change and unlike the other parties, the whole party would implode if he didn’t follow through with most of it.
Oh, I know. I've researched him.
I'm very impressed with him also.
Like the Tea Party, there are forces that will praise him, and then stab him in the back because they like the status quo.
Don't get me wrong, I've been rooting for him for years, I just see the forces he and UKIP are up against. Those forces are the same that our Tea Party are up against.
It's an uphill fight with as many enemies in your own ranks as those in your opposition.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.