2013-05-24T10:13:17-04:00 Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=janice-atkinson Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Janice Atkinson Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3305418 2013-05-20T06:55:18-04:00 2013-05-21T08:15:34-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/ Independent claiming that "the benefits of EU membership overwhelmingly outweigh the costs, and to suggest otherwise is putting politics before economics" rests on a fundamental misunderstanding of our relationship with the EU and the world economy, and gives capitalism a bad name.

As pointed out by those excellent campaigners, The Freedom Association, it claimed that the EU may deliver £92 billion of benefits to the UK but did not mention the costs of membership. Indeed, estimates from economists including Ian Milne, Tim Congdon CBE - one of Thatcher's 'wise men' - and Professor Patrick Minford CBE all put those costs at being higher than the stated benefit.

All of the above economists contend that British business could be free of many of the costs if it left the EU. This regulation alone is estimated by Tim Congdon CBE to potentially cost the UK 5 per cent of GDP - or £75 billion - a year. With other costs including costs from direct fiscal transfers and waste, fraud and corruption, the potential total cost European Union membership to the UK comes to £150 billion - £68 billion more than the benefit claimed in today's letter.

As I pointed out in a debate with the IPPR on Radio5Live last week, since we joined the EEC in 1973 we have been in surplus with every other continent except the EU, with a trade loss of £30m per day.

Outside of the EU Britain would be free to negotiate much a more much liberal trade agreement with third countries than is possible under the Common External Tariff. The countries with the highest GDP per capital in Europe are Norway and Switzerland. Both export more, proportionally, to the EU tan Britain does.

For example, in 2011 the UK exported more to the rest of the world than it did to the EU (£388 billion vs £311 billion). The marked difference between trade was also that the UK had a surplus with the rest of the world of £17.1 billion, according to Global Britain, in contrast to its £46 billion deficit with the EU. This contrast in growth patterns has increased over the past few years and shows that the UK is becoming more global in its focus.

According to the Freedom Association, a true free trade deal with the USA would be in the UK's best interest. According to the Pink Book, the record of the UK's balance of trade produced by the Treasury, the UK's surplus with the United States remained over £20 billion (Table 4, & Table 9.2 on page 154 of the Pink Book 2012). This trade primarily concerns trade in financial, legal and accounting services as well as some high-tech goods. However, the trade deal currently under discussion concerns a number of areas that the UK might not be interested in dealing in.

And it's not only about trade. It's about sovereignty - roughly 84% of our laws come directly from Europe, undermining our Parliament, who just rubber-stamp new directives because their hands are tied. And it's about the cost of living. It is estimated that with reform of the Common Agricultural Policy Britain's families would be better off by £1200 per annum in lower food costs, £200 pa better off by ditching green energy taxes and businesses could be freed of the £5k burden of red tape and bureaucracy that they have suffered since we joined the EEC.

So Messrs Branson et al, go back and do your sums. Your signatories to this letter are fighting their self-interested corporatist corner. The big energy companies are well-represented in your letter, along with others who have contracts with government or are taxpayer bailed out companies.

The world has been moving even more towards globalisation and centralisation with greater (red tape) regulation and controls, favouring the larger multi-corporate entity. We have experienced cartels and monopolies discouraging growth to the many. Encouraging growth in our economies is vital but while most politicians around the world speak of supporting small businesses, few rarely do and the corporatism machine rolls on donating and influencing decision making around the world, as demonstrated by this letter.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3153160 2013-04-25T06:30:45-04:00 2013-04-28T07:08:05-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
Having worked with Godfrey - and I would have no truck with a misogynist - it makes me smile to see how factually incorrect stories are dredged up from 2004 to belittle the party ahead of the local elections.

Godfrey hates women so much that all of his staff, bar one part-timer, are women. He was fully supportive of Jane Collins who fought Barnsley and Rotherham for UKIP, he encourages me to stand for the party and actively promotes our views (although I prefer to take a more behind the scenes than elected role these days). Our party director is female, our Eastleigh candidate was female, our Corby by-election candidate was female and our Chief of Staff in Parliament is a French woman. And we get there without quotas.

So let's correct some of the misleading stories out there.

A few weeks after his appointment to the European Parliament's Committee on Women's Rights and Gender Equality on 20 July 2004, Godfrey told an interview in Strasbourg that, "No self-respecting small businessman with a brain in the right place would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age. That isn't politically correct, is it, but it's a fact of life. The more women's rights you have, it's actually a bar to their employment."[4] Around the same time, he was reported as commenting, "I just don't think [women] clean behind the fridge enough" and that "I am here to represent Yorkshire women who always have dinner on the table when you get home."[5][6]

Godfrey told BBC Radio 4's Today that his comments were "said for fun" to illustrate a more serious point, that equal-rights legislation was in fact putting women out of work.[6] Gofrey claimed that MEPs had "little or no business experience" and did not understand the consequences of their actions.[6]
Godfrey clarifies his point with published research material, available on his website [[8]]. Following this publicity he received hundreds of emails and letters from employers, including many women, who confirmed they they were operating discriminatory practices on the employment of women because of 'costly employment legislation from the EU which was damaging to women's employability, even if they were the best person for the job'.

Godfrey subsequently challenged the TUC's Sarah Veale on Friday, 14th September 2012 when they debated employment rights on the BBC's Three Counties Jonathan Verron-Smith Show [[9]]. Sarah Veale clearly stated twice, and would not withdraw her comments, claimed that Godfrey had said: "Women should not go to work but should stay at home and clean behind the fridge". Godfrey stated that this was simply a lie and asked that she apologise unreservedly. She claims he said this in a Women's Hour interview in 2007. Godfrey offered £1000 to the charity of her choice if she can find a transcript or recording of him saying this. He's still waiting.

This week the hacks turned on Nigel Farage for having the audacity to admit to visiting a lap-dancing bar. A few days later it is Godfrey they are turning their typepads on. UKIP must really be upsetting the cosy tripartite status quo of politics.

The trouble with UKIP is that they are the party of common sense, which is what I have been saying for some years, hence the title of their local election campaign, 'Common Sense'. Straight no-nonsense politics, giving the stark facts of reality of where we are, how we got here and what we need to do about it. That resonates with the public who are fed up to the back teeth with spin, lies and political correctness. With the three other parties fighting for the centre ground where politics has become one homogenous melting pot of blandness the public are looking for leadership and truth.

I know some Tory MPs and councillors who firmly believe women should not have a role in politics or even work (none will admit to visiting lap-dancing bars). I can remember one prominent female MP and recent former cabinet minister who, when standing for selection in a south east safe seat in the 1990s was asked, "my dear, when you are sitting on the green benches who will be looking after your husband and children?" It's a generational thing and thankfully dying out.

Godfrey, Nigel and others, carry on being politically incorrect, the voters trust you, not the rest of them.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3132499 2013-04-22T12:25:02-04:00 2013-04-23T09:41:19-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
The 'unbiased and politically neutral BBC' commissioned the report for Newsnight which will be aired tonight.

The BBC have today issued the (narrative) results of research they have undertaken regarding the likelihood of Romanian and Bulgarian citizens coming to live and work in the UK in 2013 and 2014. These results have given rise to headlines on the BBC News today saying that "few" people are planning to migrate to the UK and there is "no indication of huge Romanian-Bulgarian influx".

Nigel Farage MEP said: "Looking at the figures which the BBC have quoted in their report, their survey of 1,014 Bulgarian adults showed that 37% had considered moving to another EU state in the past five years (2.7m people); and that 36% intend to work elsewhere in the EU in 2013/14 (2.65m), of which 9.3% (689,000) stated the UK was their destination.

"In the survey of Romanian adults, 33% had considered moving to another EU state in the past five years (6.3m people); and 36% intend to work elsewhere in the EU in 2013/14 (1.8m), of which 4.6% (338,000) stated the UK was their destination.

"Together, the total considering moving to the UK in 2013 and 2014 was therefore over a million.

"More startlingly, though, the BBC has then concocted their astonishing 'nothing to see here' headlines out of a series of follow up questions. If you convert their stated percentages into real figures, the story is a good deal more shocking than the BBC's headlines suggest.

"It is surely perverse to suggest that there is nothing to worry about, when their own survey shows that 83,537 people (76,172 Romanians and 7,365 Bulgarians) are already attending job interviews in the UK; 263,337 people (57,129 Romanians and 206,208 Bulgarians) are currently looking for a job in the UK with the help of a recruitment company; 236,405 people (133,301 Romanians and 103,104 Bulgarians) are currently looking for a job in the UK without the help of arecruitment company; and 164,547 (76,172 Romanians and 88,375 Bulgarians) are already in the process of finding a place to live in the UK."

Farage went on, "According to the BBC's own figures, the total number of people in Bulgaria and Romania who are actively looking for a job in the UK is 499,741; while another 248,082 are progressing a job application or looking for accommodation.

"In short, according to the BBC's survey, three-quarters of a million adults from Romania and Bulgaria are currently in the process of trying to move to the UK in 2013/2014.

"Theses are figures that we should be worried about, when we have significant and rising youth unemployment, when the NAO says that next year the country will be 250,000 primary school places short, and when the Government admit that they want to build on 1,500 square miles to accommodate the increase in population".

Farage said, "It looks to me that the BBC is engaging, with its headlining of this story, not in reporting the facts, but in influencing the debate."

The Government doesn't have a clue how many will come. Therefore they cannot plan and our infrastructure, already straining to cope, will see further stress.

Don't believe Cameron who tells us that he is going to curb benefit entitlement. He can't, Europe won't let him.

Who do you believe - the man who has been consistently right on Europe, immigration, the financial crisis and more, or the BBC? Take these findings with a pinch of salt and read UKIP's deputy leader Paul Nuttall on this subject, found on my blog, who visited Bulgaria earlier this year. It's a no-brainer.

I suppose if the Government cannot be honest about numbers who can blame the state broadcaster who, when it should be reporting the real reasons why we need a quarter of a million more school places (and it didn't), looks to create its own stories? Can the Conservative then cry 'bias' when their own Government cannot provide the facts? This is a deeply worrying step for the taxpayer, openness and democracy.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3036659 2013-04-08T09:07:07-04:00 2013-04-08T09:50:31-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
You changed this country and the lives of millions for the better, mine included.

A grocer's daughter. Grammar School. Oxford. Downing Street.

What a sad day. She inspired me as a 16-year-old to get involved in politics and campaign for her.
I was girl from social housing. My father was a co-op coal worker and my mother a cleaner. My education was ditched because my former grammar school turned into a bog-standard comprehensive. However, she inspired me and my generation. Girls could aspire and achieve, despite lowly backgrounds. She made it possible.

We have lost a great prime minister, a great leader, a great Conservative, a great Briton.

She saved our country. We were the basket case of Europe, the world. Her legacy is that she served us well and is the greatest post-war prime minister. She transformed our country. We mourn you. Thank you.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.3005322 2013-04-03T07:38:47-04:00 2013-04-03T07:57:58-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/ 'Beveridge tells how to banish want. Cradle to grave plan. All pay - all benefit', read the front page of the Daily Mirror in 1942.

Fast forward to today and he would turn in his grave. That headline is a reminder to the poverty industry, who attack the government's reforms, of how far removed their thinking is from the original ideals of welfare.

As the government's welfare reforms kick in and George Osborne delivers his glottal stops down in Sittingbourne, the left attack the reforms, yet Labour doesn't have the answers, it doesn't even say it will repeal the so-called 'bedroom tax'.

As George adopted an estuary accent in my friend Gordon Henderson's constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey, the audience nodded in agreement at his speech. They don't believe that a cap on benefits should be around the level of the average wage of £26,000, as most of them are probably on that and have little chance of getting a pay rise this year. Take heed, Chancellor, this is working class country and the people you need to vote for you at the next General Election, as they did in their hordes for Margaret Thatcher. They instinctively understood her belief of living within your means.

For decades, the highly political anti-poverty industry has led the debate on the definition of poverty.
They narrowly focus on eradicating poverty by increased benefits and expanding social services, where protection of benefits and the recipients' right not to work overshadows the argument that work equals empowerment and they promote the 'victimisation' of those they claim to represent. They think that something needs to be done for the poor, not with the poor. That's the old argument, it doesn't work and is no longer sustainable.

In a free market economy we cannot sustain the system as it is without reform, we cannot continue to print money. The poverty industry way out is a system that is bust.

As John Bird, founder of The Big Issue comments in today's Times about the poverty industry who have challenged Iain Duncan Smith to live on £53 a week: "Why don't we get the self-declared defenders of the poor -- the bosses of the poverty industry, that whole web of charities and campaigning groups who depend upon the welfare state for their existence -- to live on that pitiful sum. They would then enjoy first hand the welfare state that has done such an effective job in keeping the poor poor, and the jobless jobless." Quite right John, and he should know.

The left's way is bust. Take that doyenne of the Left, Polly Toynbee, also a supporter of the poverty industry, who says:

"I want Britain to aim for the social and economic balance that thrives in Nordic nations".

Yet, we are already there Polly. Britain spends more on family benefits than virtually any other country in Europe. Some thirty million people - almost half the total population - now receive income from at least one social security benefit. Expenditure on social protection represents by far the largest single area of government spending. In 2012/13, at £200 billion or almost 30 per cent of government spending, it is one of the highest levels in the world.

The LibLabCon parties have made us into Nordic social democrats. Labour entrenched us and the Tories are trying to deliver the welfare reform we need whilst battling against the poverty industry who shape the debate, loudly across our state controlled media.

Labour lavished benefits and created a 'something for nothing' culture that penalised people who wanted to work but it made no economic sense for them to do so. A whole generation has grown up believing that to claim from the welfare state is their right, not a safety harness for those who fall on hard times.

Iain Duncan Smith's extensive research into social justice via his think tank, Centre for Social Justice, where they identified the five pathways to poverty: family breakdown, education failure, worklessness and dependency, addiction and serious personal debt hits the nail on the head. He has a record to be proud of, one of the few ministers who really understansd their brief.

But his universal credit will fail unless we also tackle the other causes of UK poverty and the vested interests that keep families there, the rising cost of living.

The Institute of Economic Affairs produced a report that by addressing the high cost of UK living each family would be £750 per annum better off.

There are 8 areas which can be reformed to bring about this change:

• High housing costs. The poverty industry will argue for increasing housing benefits. Liberalisation of planning would go some way to ameliorate this yet the poverty industry's voices are silent
• Our food prices are 30% higher, the most expensive in Europe. Reform of CAP could bring about a 25% saving
• Fuel prices have risen by 159% in 10 years. Dump green taxes and stop funding the climate change wheeze which cost every family an extra £120 per year on heating their homes.
• The proposed fat tax, minimum alcohol pricing and duty on cigarettes all have the most impact on the poor - and there are others such as:
• Childcare costs are the highest in the OECD
• Employment protection legislation
• And policies that discourage family formation
• And lower marginal tax rates

I am no apologist for Cameron's government but I applaud two ministers - Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove - who are doing more to eradicate poverty through fundamental reforms than any other minister. They have taken on the poverty industry and the unions that entrench people into system of welfare dependency and low educational achievement.

So ministers, the next time the lobbying teaching unions and the poverty industry come knocking on your door, don't let them in, don't open their emails, throw their letters in the bin and plough on with your reforms.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2882885 2013-03-15T07:07:27-04:00 2013-05-15T05:12:01-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
What am I talking about - well, it could be anything because that's how the waffle flies back and forth between the three main parties at Westminster but of course what they were really talking about this morning is uncontrolled immigration filling up our primary schools.

The latest report from the National Audit Office warns that a quarter of a million extra school places will be needed in England by autumn 2014 to meet rising demand because the past decade has seen the biggest increase in birth rate since the 1950s. Labour cut back school places, this government is playing catch-up.

One in five primary school places is full, we know that the majority of migrants are coming from the EU accession states. The Office for National Statistics (ONS) data shows the net migration and population increases/decreases in the 27 EU states. Britain has the fifth largest population growth behind Cyprus, Ireland, Spain and Luxembourg. And conversely, the countries with a net migration loss are Latvia, Bulgaria, Lithuania, Romania, Hungary and Poland.

It is no coincidence that the number of people in their 20s has risen from 6.6m to 7.6m - that additional one million people are most likely to be migrant workers from these latter countries. And it is no coincidence that we have one million out of work young people and that the birth rate has risen.

Can I request that our state broadcaster and the rest of the media asks the pertinent questions such as:

What nationalities are the children requiring the places?
How long have they been here?
How many are asylum seekers and what borders did they cross to get here?
Have their parents paid taxes?
How much is it costing the taxpayers for these extra places and NHS usage and other services?
Are we going to have Ed Miliband apologising (yet again) for how they got it wrong on immigration?
Has the government made extra provision for the unknown numbers of Bulgarians and Romanians arriving with their children on 1 January?

And then the British public can make an informed decision at the ballot box.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2866173 2013-03-13T06:32:37-04:00 2013-05-13T05:12:01-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
This ditched tax, along with the proposed 'fat tax' and 'bedroom tax' will only hit the poor. Those former members of the Bullingdon Club wouldn't notice a hitch in wine prices but the little old lady on a fixed income who likes a sherry before dinner and the dwindling few who pop into the pub on the way home from work would have shouldered this tax.

Some in this government are sounding like a shrill nanny. The state knows best and we are going to regulate you either way by tax or draconian policies. They sound too much like Labour, yet with a tinge of the sneery upper class looking down on those who drink cheap wine, alcopops and cider.

The UK, and particularly Scotland, has an unhealthy approach to alcohol so perhaps the solution is via education. Why do some kids get plastered on alcopops? Why do the middle classes - and this is a growing health risk group - who sit at home most evenings downing a bottle of Chablis? Increasingly, why do women open a bottle as soon as they get home from work and gradually work their way through it? Why are our town centres reeling with vomiting middle-aged women, falling off kerbs in high heels and too short skirts putting their health and life at risk? I know some of it is down to pressures of family life and work but the continentals don't do it. You don't see Parisian or Roman men and women disgracing themselves after a night out in their capital cities. Yet in London on Friday and Saturday nights you see hoards of men and women falling over, brawling, vomiting and behaving disgracefully whilst the tourists watch in amazement. Why do publicans continue to serve drunks, is it because they are a dying breed themselves? It's a British thing. These are the problems that need to be addressed.

Most people when they buy alcohol in a supermarket are not pre-loaders looking for the most booze they can load their trolley with for the cheapest price, but pensioners in council flats looking to save a few pennies, they are doing so because they have to be careful with their money.

I'm glad Cameron is doing the right thing and not bowing to the anti-drink lobby. He now needs to get to grips with the 'bedroom tax' that will penalise divorced fathers on low incomes who will not be allowed to have a spare bedroom for his visiting children and the 'fat tax' which again will hit the poor, not the middle classes who prefer to buy over-priced organic produce delivered to their door.

Talking of 'fat tax' has anyone noticed a number of our most popular brands have become bland due to reduced sugar or salt? Bran Flakes, Heinz Baked Beans (buy Crosse and Blackwell, their taste indicates they're still pretty well loaded), Heinz Tomato Soup and most pizzas. All in moderation, I say, and don't tamper with the taste any more. Cheers.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2827043 2013-03-07T06:12:00-05:00 2013-05-07T05:12:01-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
E-cigarettes or electronic cigarettes are designed as a safer alternative to smoking cigarettes. Many cigarette smokers have found this product acceptable as it delivers the same amount of nicotine as a cigarette without containing tobacco, smoke, tar or the 4,000 toxins found in tobacco smoke.

This apparently successful Ersatz of cigarette is threatened by a new piece of EU legislation and more specifically the Chapter V Article 18 of the European Products Directive and electronic cigarettes. Indeed it states that "Nicotine containing products that either have nicotine level exceeding 2mg, a nicotine concentration exceeding 4mg per ml or whose intended use results in a mean maximum peak plasma concentration exceeding 4mg per ml may be placed on the market only if they have been authorised as medicinal products.."

It's summed by Ukip's Godfrey Bloom, who will be voting against this later in September:

"This new piece of legislation made in Brussels is so counterproductive and illogical one must ask oneself the question, who is really behind it?"

"In fact I would even go further by adding you'd really have to be extremely naive not to understand their game. I know the EU technocrats have a liking in telling us how to live our lives but this case is more pernicious, it is about money and money only.

"By demanding that e-cigs be authorised as medicinal products, it means that the market will be literally taken over by the pharmaceutical industry preventing the small companies selling the product to compete by lack of human resource or money.

"Think about it, these e-cigs are in direct competition with nicotine patches or even anti-depressants. They are seriously threatening their business, aren't they?"

Godders has got something here. There are 10,000 lobbyists prowling the corridors of the EU, all with vested corporate interests. They are there to undermine the little businesses that make a trade from these products, the capitalists that make money and employ the majority of people. They did it with vitamins and supplements.

Yet, the Royal College of Physicians is on the side of e-cigarettes and the pro-choice lobby and says, "Nicotine itself is not a particularly hazardous drug ... it's something on a par with the effects you get from caffeine.

"If all the smokers in Britain stopped smoking cigarettes and started smoking e-cigarettes we would save five million deaths in people who are alive today. It's a massive potential public health prize".

Yes, and as I walk down the street, enter a building, a train station or pub, my lungs might be less likely to be assaulted by the smokers who congregate to get their fix.

Interestingly, attempts were made by Holland and Germany to regulate the industry but were overturned in court.

So, who do the vested corporate interests turn to, the EU of course. I think it's more of a labelling issue. If we label our food, vitamins & supplements, e-cigarettes and anything else that consumers buy, then we make an informed choice. But that's not what the corporates want and as the EU is run by the vested interests of lobbyists and who they represent, they will get their way.

In addition, those EU officials and MEPs who fervently believe that they know better than the voters who put them there, the nanny-state will prevail along with a fat tax, minimum alcohol pricing and probably a tax on e-cigarettes. All are designed by the ruling middle classes, resulting in higher consumer costs, hitting the poorest working classes the hardest.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2759699 2013-02-25T12:56:38-05:00 2013-04-27T05:12:01-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
We are often accused being little Englanders and against immigration per se. We are not. We would happily welcome the brightest and best from around the world, regardless of country, religion or race, but we would not welcome those whose own countries would benefit from their brightest and best staying at home to help build them out of poverty.

Here is a poignant piece by Ukip's deputy leader, Paul Nuttall who recently visited Bulgaria.

Bulgaria: My Experience

On 1 January next year, all restrictions on the movement of Bulgarians and Romanians in the EU will be lifted. This means that under EU 'freedom of movement' rules, 29 million Bulgarians and Romanians will be free to come to the UK to work or claim benefits. There are already a 100,000 Bulgarians and Romanians living in the UK. We also know that the British government commissioned an investigation into how many Bulgarians and Romanians were likely to arrive after the restrictions are lifted. Worryingly, the report has been buried and none of the cabinet is willing to discuss figures. Thus, people are drawing their own conclusions.

I recently visited the Bulgarian capital of Sofia on a fact finding mission. What I found was a handsome city with some beautiful architecture surrounded by snow-capped mountains. The people were friendly and English was widely spoken, especially amongst the young. On the face of it, it seemed to be a run-of-the-mill bustling and vibrant European capital city. However, once the surface was scratched, things were rather different. The word on everybody's lips was 'corruption.' Bulgaria has three times the amount of corruption than the EU average. Indeed, the Centre for the Study of Democracy believes that 150,000 bribes take place in Bulgaria every month. The vast majority of people pointed the finger directly at the recently departed government of Byoko Borisov and his party GERB.

My visit to the city had caused a bit of a sensation in the Bulgarian press. I was billed as an anti-Bulgarian MEP who hated the country and the Bulgarian people. I thought this was slightly odd as I had never uttered a word about the country or its people. It turns out that the hysteria was being fed by the Bulgarian Far Right which was determined to make political mileage out of attacking me personally and my visit as a whole. The stormed my press conference, called for me to be deported and held a protest outside the British Embassy, thus forcing it to close for half a day. I concluded that it was more about political posturing on their part, rather than wanting to engage in any serious debate.

The point I was trying make, and did so successfully I believe, is that mass migration from Bulgaria to the UK is as bad Bulgaria as much as is it is for the UK, for I firmly believe that the people who will leave Bulgaria will be the young, educated and qualified. These youngsters, many of them fresh from university, will travel West in search of a better life, and they cannot be blamed for that. However, what they will encounter is a country where 21% of its own youth are unemployed, and quite frankly, the jobs are not there. Thus, if they opt to stay one of two things will happen: either they will resort to claiming benefits or more likely, knowing the fantastic Eastern European work ethic, end up working in a café, bar or restaurant. I suggested live on Bulgarian national TV, that these are the people that Bulgaria needs to keep within its own borders: the future accountants, lawyers and teachers who can change Bulgaria, root out corruption and get its flat-lined economy kick-started.

One experience of my trip shocked me most: my visit to Sofia's largest Romani site. The district of Fakuteta contains around 50,000 people living in a square mile. It looked like a South African shanty town and I could well imagine I was on the outskirts of Johannesburg. The fact that somewhere like this existed in an EU state appalled me. The children were malnourished and living in dirt, the rain was seeping through the ceilings of their homes and the streets mud baths, probably awash with human excrement. What amazed me was that some of the Bulgarian camera crew and reporters did not know that this place even existed. To me, this simply emphasised just how much the Romani are cut off from mainstream society in Bulgaria. I ventured to make the point that these people could not even afford to make it into central Sofia, never mind to the UK. However, I was informed that I was being naive and that these poor people would be moved on to the UK by criminal gangs all too ready to exploit them and their children for criminal gain. It sickened me to my stomach and my visit to Fakuteta will stay with me forever. I leave this point by saying that something must be done to help these people.

It cannot be denied that a lot of people in Bulgaria want to come to the UK, and I suspect our own government know this. A poll on Bulgarian TV showed that 54% of people would prefer to leave their own country and come and live in the UK. Bulgarian minimum wage is just over €150 per month and the average wage under €400 per month. You cannot blame people for wanting to better themselves and do the best for their family. However, I suspect many will be disappointed when they find the streets of London are not paved with gold.

It has some shocking details about the state of that country. How many other UK MEPs could write this from first hand experience?

I think Paul's experience should be a shocking reminder to this government that they need to admit to the British public what is likely to happen when Bulgaria and Romania's admittance restrictions are lifted in 2014. Instead of posturing as Cameron and co are doing in saying they will restrict benefits and housing, they should be admitting that under EU accession rules there is nothing they can do to stop them coming. It is a great shame that these two countries will see a brain drain which will not help those at the bottom of their societies. Instead, a considerable number of them will be exploited and we will be paying the bill.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2678084 2013-02-13T10:48:23-05:00 2013-04-15T05:12:01-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/ a report by the Resolution Foundation, who produced their 'state of the nation' report entitled, 'Life on low to middle income'.

Excellent stuff, all about the 9.8 million people who make up one third of Britain's workforce who they say has seen a real time fall of 2.4% in post-tax income between 2009-2011. They work in construction, manufacturing, education (not teaching) and healthcare, but at the lower end. They were traditionally called the 'working classes'. Although this term doesn't appear in the lexicon of the centre-left think tank world.

The interesting thing is that this backward slide in incomes started before so-called 'austerity' in 2003, under Labour.

Dig a little deeper into their slides and it shows some stark facts:

• Poverty is driven more by a single earner in a family;
• Lack of savings;
• Debt equals a quarter of their income in repayments;
• 37% of income goes on essentials - fuel, food, etc

But:

• In the Thatcher/Major years, their incomes rose from an average of £16k to £20k
• Contrast that to the Blair Brown years when in real terms their wages grew by only £2k over the thirteen years

This income group has seen fuel poverty kick in, unaffordable childcare, home ownerships slip out of grasp for the younger ones, job losses due to globalisation and automation and an education service that doesn't serve them well. I agree with every one of their points. Yet, what they don't say is that these families are having to pay for the climate change wheeze tax on fuel which is costing every family an extra £120 per annum, driven by EU policies, rubber stamped by a coalition government which believes in the unaffordable EU diktats. And homes, where recently a government minister admitted that 50% of our housing stock had gone to immigrants.

My view is that uncontrolled immigration has led to wholesale job losses for the unskilled and semi-skilled; put a strain on the housing stock and has led to men in this category earning less than their womenfolk for the first time. These people have also seen a real time downward turn in wages in exchange for jobs.

Take one example: Ford closed its plant in Eastleigh/Southampton with 500 skilled job losses. Ford transferred the production to Turkey, aided by EU money and a direct payment from HM Treasury. Those men (mainly) will lose their jobs. The same is happening in all northern towns and city centres, London is the only exception.

Now, this may be a modern juxtapositioning of the labour/gender workforce. But I don't believe so.

I put this to the panel, one of whom was Richard Lambert, former director general of the CBI, and asked him whether he thought uncontrolled immigration had had a detrimental effect on this group, and in particular men.

He said that "we have had no uncontrolled immigration ... and therefore no evidence to suggest that it has". Astounding. I reminded him of the millions of EU immigrants that arrived under Labour. I got a stony silence.

Every centre-left meeting I go to they bang on about the 1% - whether it is paying for childcare or the squeezed middle, it's all their fault. Yet what strikes me - and I like the work of the Resolution Foundation and its people - but they are a kind of 1%. We sit in their swish Savile Row offices, with the chattering educated, cultured, articulate classes of the London meritocracy - Observer leader writers; C4 reporters, think tank policy wonks; union representatives and my companion sitting next to me, Polly Toynbee, who asked me whether Lambert's answer had made me change my mind - ? We agreed to differ.

Interestingly, three of the 1% came up to me afterwards and said "you should hear what the indigenous women of the East End think about mass immigration, you're right" and "I'm from x think tank but by God I believe in UKIP's policies", to "I have voted Labour all my life but they're wrong on immigration, housing and jobs and I'm from an immigrant family".

As I have been saying for a while it's not just the disaffected Tories sympathetic with UKIP's views who are voting UKIP, but increasingly Labour supporters too.

Until it is acknowledged by the chattering and political classes that our jobs and prosperity are on the line, that they have to close our borders and get to grips with an education system that is failing the working classes, then the Resolution Foundation will continue to produce statistics that show we are failing our people.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2662836 2013-02-11T12:25:58-05:00 2013-04-13T05:12:01-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
Then we have a silly Lib Dem MEP objecting to the use of the word ' indigenous'. Both of these stories are unbelievable. But sadly, they are true.

As our political leaders strut their stuff on their home turf about how successful they were in Brussels last week, you'll never know the truth on who voted to increase, stagnate or decrease the EU's decision on plans to cut the EU budget because it will never be published.

In a staggering move by the President of the European Parliament, MEPs will be given a secret ballot on the newly negotiated EU budget.

The socialist Martin Schulz, who has openly opposed the conclusions from the EU Council summit of European leaders, even threatening to veto the final decision, announced the plan with Joseph Daul, leader of the centre-right European People's Party (EPP) the largest group in the European Parliament - the group that nearly all British Conservative MPs had to be dragged kicking and screaming from.

It is now up to MEPs to pass the measures decided at the summit in Brussels, with many fearing a majority of MEPs would oppose a cut to the EU budget.

Speaking in Brussels, Nigel Farage MEP, leader of Ukip, said: "This is a dark, dark day for democracy. It's utterly staggering. Making this a secret ballot removes all accountability from the feckless MEPs who will wilfully vote down the plans to cut the EU budget, despite the widely held belief that cuts to EU spending is essential.

"It is disgusting that in order to guarantee more votes to reject the budget cut, Mr Schulz is providing MEPs with a cloak of deception which means the very people who voted them in will not be able to challenge them over their position. The man is a disgrace to his office.

"It flies in the face of political liberty and once again shows the EU up to be the biased and corrupt anti-democratic organisation that it is.

"Most people in the UK fail to understand the fanaticism of the European institutions for creating a federal union, whatever the process. For people like Schulz, the means justify the end.

"I call upon all MEPs whatever their leaning to reject this call and defend the right to democracy that the peoples of Europe have shed so much blood to create."

Hear hear Nigel, but not many will listen. Few MEPs see themselves as defenders of democracy, but defenders of their way of life. That their way is the righteous and only way, the way to full political integration.

They couldn't get an increase by the front door, so they will block it by the back.

Also on Friday of last week, my friend MEP Godfrey Bloom who, when debating with Lib Dem MEP Rebecca Taylor at Hull University, had the temerity to utter the word 'indigenous' Ms Taylor objected to the word being used.

Do these politically correct types really object to English language usage?

The Oxford Dictionary definition of indigenous is 'originating or occurring naturally in a particular place; for example, native: the indigenous peoples of Siberia'.

Why can't we have indigenous peoples too? Funny, on her website she states she is 'standing up for the Yorkshire and Humber region'. Having stood in a Yorkshire seat the peoples of that area are some of the most proudly indigenous regional people in the UK. I used to joke with them that I would never be called a Yorkshire lass because my family hadn't lived there for two hundred years and some would still declare UDI on the rest of Britain. Silly woman.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2589684 2013-01-31T09:27:13-05:00 2013-04-02T05:12:01-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
Labour tied itself and us in knots in trying to prove it was the party of low taxation by giving the low paid a 10% entry level to paying tax and then cruelly abolished it.

They slyly and nastily introduced the 50% top rate of tax to prove to their voters that they were not the party that believed in free enterprise and high earners (the donations were starting to dry up at that point, so nothing to lose) and then called a General Election to goad the Tories from opposition about being the party of the rich if they tried to bring the rate down.

Osborne and co duly tied themselves in knots to prove they weren't and came in for much criticism and opprobrium from Labour and, disappointingly, disingenuity from their Lib Dem coalition partners when they reduced the top rate to 45%.

Labour gave with one hand and took back with another. They taxed the low paid highly but then gave it back in tax credits.The tax offices couldn't cope with the complexities and families were being penalised by over and under-payments, which meant that some found themselves in genuine financial difficulty when they couldn't re-pay the over-payments.

There is another way.

Ukip believes in merging income tax and national insurance into a flat rate income tax to greatly simplify our tax code, which currently stands at over 11,000 pages.

At the last election we opted to merge 20% basic income tax with 11% national insurance to create a 31% flat tax on all earned incomes over £11,500. As a tax cut for all, with a higher threshold, it would also take the poorest paid out of income tax altogether.

It would also mean abolishing the existing 40% and 45% (50%) income tax brackets, the latter actually costing the economy rather than taking in revenue.

For employers, Ukip aims to abolish employers' national insurance across a parliament to end the tax on jobs. This will undoubtedly boost employment and simplify the process of employing people.

We can afford this. As one of the two largest contributors to the EU budget, Britain now gives £50million per day to Brussels. Dave may try to persuade you that over 50% of our trade is with the EU. But we actually have a trade deficit and have had for years. Yet we have a trade surplus with the rest of the world.

By coming out of the EU we can afford a low tax economy, benefiting our citizens and economy. And the businesses will come flocking to our shores with increased employment opportunities.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2532002 2013-01-23T05:31:36-05:00 2013-03-25T05:12:01-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
Ukip, and other groups campaigning for an 'out' result need to nail their messages very tightly and come together as one cohesive voice. The left, right and centre, the think tanks, pressure groups, campaign groups must unite under one banner, as they did in the AV referendum. Divided the message will fail.

We must nail the lies about three million job losses and that our trade is inextricably linked to the EU and to leave would see massive unemployment and business lost. Take a look the excellent papers published by the Bruges Group which have academics, economists and politicians saying that we are better off out.

This will be a long and drawn out process, the vote only coming after the next election. And then only if Dave wins the 2015 vote. That is looking increasingly unlikely as the coalition will fail and fight over this issue; the Lib Dems blocked the boundary changes which would have seen a fairer and more equal balance of voting numbers not skewed in favour of Labour, and Dave is just so unpopular.

Cameron is wrong to leave the referendum to after the next election, kicking it into the long grass. Europe is sinking under its own currency with bankrupt countries and we are being dragged down with them (see my recent The Huffington Post UK piece on trading figures with the EU). The coalition had a referendum on our voting system without too much worry over constitutional issues. We should have a referendum in 2014 to coincide with the Euro elections. Our political parties can then set out their stalls.

In the meantime, Dave will try to negotiate with our EU partners. No chance. Germany's centre-right coalition is teetering with every likelihood that Merkel will lose the election. France has a socialist government, committed to a more federalist EU. Those countries are in the driving seat for any renegotiation. You can't have an EU with an a la carte menu.

Cameron calls those looking to trade outside of the EU "Little Englanders" and his new term, "isolationist" gives us some indication where he will stand. In business I have headed up many new business and sales and marketing teams and the temptation is to stay in your comfort zone rather than pushing the boundaries and re-kindling old markets (Commonwealth) and new relationships (China, India, South America) is strong. That, unfortunately, is the message for staying in. that we are isolationist rather than looking for new trading partners.

Rather than my views, listen to the man who has fought against the creeping powers of the EU for years, the man who has forced this debate, Nigel Farage:

"The very fact that we are talking about the possibility of Britain leaving the European Union is Ukip's biggest victory to date.

"Even fiver years ago the thought of this issue being even discussed was an anathema and it is a great triumph for the tens of thousands of Ukip members and supporters that they have, through calm and passionate arguments, put it on the nation's agenda.

"Today we heard the skeleton of the Yes side's argument, how the prime minister will lead a Yes vote. We saw how he refuses to answer the question as to whether, given he will fail in his proposed negotiations, if he will support an out.

"It is clear the prime minister has been forced by public opinion to offer a referendum but it is also clear that the options he offers are no options at all.

"Our friends on the continent have no intention of giving anything more than lip service to the repatriation of powers. They might let us catch herrings in the Solent but not much more.

"The PM has made clear his commitment to the EU Single Market, which will now become the rallying point for the old establishment in this country. Our job will be to point out that argument for the Single Market, is just the same as one used for the Common Market years ago.

"We will campaign for a trade deal with Europe, to cooperate and to be good neighbours but we do not want membership of a political union.

"The genie is out of the bottle: the fight for our country's liberty starts today."]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2521069 2013-01-21T12:48:58-05:00 2013-03-23T05:12:01-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/ Guy Verhofstadt's HuffPo column which takes EU referendum scaremongering to another level, even by Nick Clegg's standards.

This former PM of Belgium (has Belgium got a prime minister at last, I can't remember whether they are allowed to have one courtesy of the EU or the people were prevented or failed to vote for one?) and esteemed leader of the Liberal and Democrat group in the European Parliament, says, "some have said Cameron is not going to get his way by pointing a gun at everyone else's head. I believe a more apt metaphor would be that of a madman, threatening to blow himself up unless he gets his own way." Ah, such scare tactics by the man who previously said that Cameron was "... the best federalist outside the eurozone." He can't have it both ways.

These words are not just typical from his own Liberal-Left group in Brussels but echo the elite that run Brussels and drives roughshod over the rest of us. They're afraid, very afraid as they need us more than we need them.

When I write for the Daily Mail's Rightminds, or the Daily Express, I am challenged by the editors to substantiate my claims. Let's bust some of Mr Verhofstadt's myths.

Nailing Lie Number One - Three million jobs at risk

It is a gross deception for public figures to assert or imply or that these jobs would be at risk if we left the EU. These jobs depend on trade not on EU membership. All the evidence is that employment, so far from being threatened, will revive strongly with the relief of enterprise from the burden of EU employment and business regulation and the liberalising of trade arising from EU withdrawal. The evidence is compelling:-

 EU26 trade with us is 12% higher than our trade with them - it would follow that nearly four million EU jobs depend on it. In reality over six million EU jobs depend on its trade with us.(1 see footnotes)

 We have a heavy overall current account deficit with EU26 - £52.4 billion in 2010 and over £46 billion in 2011(2) - but with the rest of the world a surplus of £15.1 billion in 2010 and £17 billion in 2011. The EU exports £28 billion more in goods and services to us than we export to them.

 Our most successful trade is not with any EU26 state - it is with USA (surplus £22 billion), Australia (£9.7 billion) and Switzerland (£8.5 billion) - all non EU27 countries (3) .

 Our trade with EU26 is falling - in goods and services by over 13% since 2000(4) but has increased by 12% with the rest of the world in the same period

 Europe as a whole is in serious decline relative to the world. From 30% in 1980 its share of global wealth will fall to 17% in 2017 (IMF) (5) .

 Whilst the UK 's working population is set to rise many of Europe's working populations are falling steeply - Germany by over 25% and Italy's by over 20% by 2050 and Spain by 14%(6) - the decline is endemic.

 The EU average external tariff on goods and services is a little over 1% and falling - it would not inhibit trade if we were out.

Weighing all these facts is it not absurd to suppose that the trade so desperately needed by E26 failing economies will disappear if we leave the EU or that we will not be able to secure free trade with its members? The economic crisis now facing them will truly be catastrophic if such trade was materially impaired.

Nailing Lie Number 2. " ...exit from the EU would greatly diminish Britain's position on the world stage."

Far from being "Little Englanders" we are the world's fifth largest trading nation and second largest earner for overseas services and investment income. Even as an exporter of goods we rank ninth in the world with the seventh largest economy. We are the sole oil exporting European nation. In our own right we are members of the G20 accounting for 80% of world trade and 84% of world GDP. London is the world's financial centre for international transactions. Above all we have our historic links with the expanding economies of the Commonwealth in five continents and the vast market of the USA. Our trade with the rest of the world has grown by over 12% since 2000 while EU trade has fallen also by 12%.

Yet, they're all lining up to misguide us - Obama, his side-kick Philip Gordon, Verhofstadt, Roland Rudd on Question Time (Blair's former spin advisor), Ed Miliband, Vince Cable, et al, to warn us against having a referendum to re-determine our sovereignty, to deny the British public their say on whether to take back democratic control of our parliament and judiciary that has been emasculated by Brussels.

They quote a 'hostile press', 'those with vested interests' as if there is some great conspiracy to dupe the British public. If our membership benefits were that great, would we be asking for repatriation of powers, or even a referendum?

But you'll be safe Mr Verhofstadt all the time Cast Iron Dave is in the driving seat of the Conservative party.

Here are some reasons why:

1. He rolled over to Agency Worker directive and other EU laws which harm UK business and jobs.
2. Changed Tory Fisheries policy, and no longer calls for repatriation of UK territorial waters.
3. Supported EU regulation of the City of London.
4. Supports entry of Turkey to the EU - encouraging mass immigration.
5. Supported creation of EU External Action Service.
6. Failed to reduce EU budget / allows increase despite promises.
7. Supports the creation of eurozone core which would leave the UK in a permanent minority position.
8. Prepared to have 40 billion pounds UK money go via the IMF to the eurozone Bailout.
9. Forced three line whip on EU referendum debate in the Commons.

The real reason Mr Verhofstadt is so frightened of our exit is not because he firmly believes that it is in the best interests of the British people to stay in, but because the voting public of the other E26 states will see a thriving Britain and that ultimately paves the way for his elitist, expensive and autocratic lifestyle to crumble.

Footnotes:

1Ruth Lea. Global Vision Perspective April 2008 derived from House of Commons library data
2Office of National Statistics Pink Book 2012 edn Ch 9 Table 9.1 Balances Current Account
3Office of National Statistics Pink Book 2012 edn Ch 9 Table 9.1 Balances Current Account
4Office of National Statistics Pink Book 2012 edn Ch 9 Table 9.2 Current Account Credits
5IMF World Economic Outlook Database April 2012
6UN World Population Prospects medium variant 2010 revision]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2478137 2013-01-15T19:00:00-05:00 2013-03-17T05:12:01-04:00

Janice Atkinson http://www.huffingtonpost.com/janice-atkinson/
Now I thought things will get a little loud. Not so. the debates were the usual political ones, the YIs downed wine, beer and sandwiches and cheered at deputy leader, Paul Nuttall's speech. It was more like a vicar's tea party for the church youth. All very boring for the media who were there to catch them out.

I have to confess that I tottered back to the conference hotel, the worse for wear in heels and a few too many large glasses of chardonnay, where things were a little livelier in the bar with the older crowd!

Politics attracts some very good and some very odd people. Most political activists are driven by a desire to change and influence policy; some because they want to belong to a club with like-minded people and some because no other club would have them. There's nothing like a Conservative association fundraiser from the home counties which has some pretty odd characters and often a pretty closed club for the over 70s.

I have always encouraged young people to become involved in politics and had some great kids working for me when I ran campaigns for the Conservative party and, latterly, when I become a parliamentary candidate. Two were with me from GCSEs through to A-levels and now they are at university. However, youthful exhuberance brings with it trouble for those at the top.

The media love a drunken young Tory, the ones that make indiscreet remarks and party a little too hard. It's just that they are in politics that creates the headlines.

In my second piece for HuffPo about Ukip I will try to put the record straight over the election of the Young Independent's (YI) officers.

Last week it was reported on these pages that the acting chairman of YI Oliver Neville was dismissed for having pro-gay marriage views. This was not the case, he was dismissed for continually and wilfully refusing to understand his responsibilities as a party officer in relation to the clear statement of party policy, as opposed to his own views.

As well as gay marriage, he embarrassed us on Euro elections ("a sideshow") - the original reason for Ukip's existence, legalisation of drugs and prostitution and, subsequently, confessed on C4 that he supports legalisation of incest and bestiality. He/his supporters have also started saying that they are in favour of open-door immigration.

YI is full of very good people (over 700), many of whom have been in touch with me to say they are totally supportive. Equally, Ukip is very proud of YI, and I look forward to working with the vice-chairman, Rob Comley, whom I am told is great and very sensible.

Ukip officers stopped the YI election because it was being run without rules and was deteriorating into a public proxy fight. The chairman asked YI to appoint a caretaker - they decided to appoint Olly, one of the two candidates. He then purported to announce the result of the election, even though it had not been concluded or formally counted. He was not elected.

All youth have to learn the rules, it's all about growing up.

It has always fascinated me how politics attracts and engages with youth. The left are good at political activism but are not criticised in the same way as those from the centre right of politics. A group called Demand the Impossible ran a number of radical left workshops over the summer to encourage political activism. They targeted young Muslim women to engage with them about the evils of capitalism and the joys of feminism, mutualism and anarchism. The result of this was that they were motivated to 'storm' Sainsbury's in New Cross, SE London demanding a living wage for the poor workers. The 'poor' workers were bemused and the group were ejected. It didn't reach the BBC or the Daily Mail but it got a few lines in the Guardian a few months later by a blogger. Had it been Ukip students it would have been headline news across the media. I find anarchism offensive, feminism outdated and sexist and so do others but we allow them to air their views.

Political parties need activists and their votes. Freshers' weeks are populated by political parties trying to recruit students. Ukip is increasing its age spread and reach by recruiting young people. Our message resonates as it did to my generation when Margaret Thatcher was elected and subsequently by Tony Blair and New Labour's message. It's the same now for Ukip. An established party with policies that reflect what the British people want.

Yes, we've got some oddities. Yes, we're a pretty broad church. But please do not demonise the kids as the exhuberence of youth should never be crushed.]]>