- Don't worry too much about the law: if the past is any guide, nobody else will. Be creative! If you have not really got the statutory power, just brazen it out.
- Protect your back. Disclose your bias - but bury it in impenetrable prose nobody will read - so you can blame the politicians if you get caught. Para 1.17 of the Electoral Commission's Referendum Assessment is an excellent example, expressing concerns about the potential legitimacy, in the eyes of those campaigning to leave and some members of the public, of the referendum result - particularly if there was a vote to remain a member of the European Union. So no worries if a biased ballot leads to Brexit!
- Learn tricks from the past but realise you may need to be more subtle.
- Hey presto: a biased ballot paper!
The top format has been used in previous referendums including the 2014 Scotland referendum. The lower format is that proposed for the 2016 EU Referendum
Following publication of the required form of the ballot paper for the European Referendum (and further to our Press Statement of yesterday), Dirk Hazell, the leader of the UK EPP, has written to the appointed members of the Speaker’s Committee on the Electoral Commission to seek urgent review of the visually biased Euro-ballot paper.
“In deviating from the traditional Yes/No choice in a referendum, and in ratcheting up the 8 words on the Scottish referendum ballot paper to the 51 words on the Euro-ballot paper, the Electoral Commission has now also recklessly imposed visual bias in favour of Brexit. This must be reversed,” Dirk Hazell commented. “We continue to believe that the Commissioners’ error is so serious that all should immediately resign: this is more like a Carry on Comrades farce than the proper regulation of a mature democracy that the British people deserve and amply pay for,” he concluded. Following publication of the required form of the ballot paper for the European Referendum, Dirk Hazell, the leader of the UK EPP, has demanded that all Electoral Commissioners immediately resign.
“In deviating from the traditional Yes/No ballot in a referendum, the Electoral Commission over-stretched its statutory remit and must accept all responsibility,” Dirk Hazell commented. “The ballot paper in this referendum is a matter of great constitutional significance and obviously should have been treated with the greatest care. Instead, the published ballot paper is fundamentally flawed: visual bias gives undue prominence to the ballot choice of voting to leave the EU,” he explained. “As the Commissioners’ meddling has led to a manifestly biased ballot paper, they should all immediately resign,” he concluded. UK EPP’s explanatory letter to the Electoral Commission will be delivered on the morning of Tuesday 8 March. Peace, freedom and prosperity: these objectives successfully bring Europeans together as partners for a much better future after the horrors of the Second World War.
The United Kingdom fought for Europe’s freedom in Europe’s darkest hour. The United Kingdom led again in extending Europe’s frontier of freedom on the fall of the Iron Curtain. Europe as we know it today would not exist without the United Kingdom and the UK would not be what it is today without Europe. The United Kingdom inside the European Union is a driver for freedom, security and, through economic openness and innovation, for opportunity for all Europeans. The best deal for Britain must be fair to all the European Union Member States and to all European citizens. Without discrimination, it must of course respect the inviolable four freedoms underpinning our union of achievement and values. Non-discrimination and freedom of movement are core European principles. All must recognise that the Eurozone must be free, unimpeded by veto, to progress further. All must recognise the need to avoid discrimination between Eurozone and non-Eurozone countries and to defend the single market. The EPP will hold true to the twin principles of subsidiarity and “ever closer union among the peoples of Europe”. We are committed to the European project as the guardian of peace, freedom and prosperity for future generations of Europeans. We hope the UK will continue to help us to build a more competitive Europe for the benefit of all. We hope the UK will continue to help us to complete the Single Market, cutting red tape for small and medium-sized enterprises and creating millions of new jobs. We hope the UK will continue to help us all to be more secure. The challenges in future will not become less. Competition with other regions of the world will become stronger, threats are increasing and we are convinced that we will only be able to defend our values and our prosperity together. United, together, we better protect our common values and create more opportunities for all European people. The United Kingdom is the fifth largest economy in the world but the EU’s 28 Member States jointly form the world’s largest economy, the world’s biggest single market and the most prosperous continent. We have achieved and can in future achieve so much together as partners who share the same values of democracy and universal human rights, the rule of law and entrepreneurship. After their forthcoming national debate, we hope the British people will choose to remain as members of the EU. The United Kingdom is stronger and more secure as a member of a European Union united in diversity. We warmly extend the hand of friendship as fellow Europeans to the great British people. We are all stronger together. Ahead of the House of Lords Second Reading Debate, UK EPP seeks equality in the EU Referendum vote.
“This Referendum is about Britain’s long-term future. The young - those aged 16 years and above - therefore have a particular right to vote,” comments 4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP) leader Dirk Hazell. “Ending selective discrimination against EU nationals would also evidence the Westminster Parliament’s commitment to fairness and law. We of course warmly welcome residents of Gibraltar and nationals of Cyprus, Ireland and Malta being entitled to vote. However - although discrimination between EU citizens on grounds of nationality is forbidden by the Treaties agreed by the British Parliament (Article 18 TFEU) - the Government proposes to disqualify other EU citizens lawfully resident in the UK, the overwhelming majority,” he states. “We hope all nationals of all EU Member States lawfully resident in the UK will also be allowed to vote in this Referendum in which they have a valid interest. This cannot undo the Government’s unlawful disqualification of an estimated 70% of non-British EU Nationals in the 2014 European election (in breach of Article 20(2)(b) TFEU) or its pressure on the British media to suppress until after that election its presidential character, but it would help to create a level playing field more consistent with the letter and spirit of relevant British and EU law. It would also end the divisive and unacceptable inconsistency of a lawfully elected parliamentarian within the UK being disqualified from voting in the referendum,” he concludes. 20 December 1926 - 9 October 2015
UK EPP notes with respect and sadness the death of Geoffrey Howe and our sympathies are extended to his family. We particularly note his vital role as Foreign Secretary in persuading the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, to support essential components of the Single European Act which transformed for the better the lives of hundreds of millions of Europeans. We here reproduce his great resignation speech of 13 November 1990 which we believe continues to offer relevance and resonance within the Conservative Party, and across the UK and EU: I find to my astonishment that a quarter of a century has passed since I last spoke from one of the Back Benches. Fortunately, however, it has been my privilege to serve for the past 12 months of that time as Leader of the House of Commons, so I have been reminded quite recently of the traditional generosity and tolerance of this place. I hope that I may count on that today as I offer to the House a statement about my resignation from the Government. It has been suggested--even, indeed, by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends--that I decided to resign solely because of questions of style and not on matters of substance at all. Indeed, if some of my former colleagues are to be believed, I must be the first Minister in history who has resigned because he was in full agreement with Government policy. The truth is that, in many aspects of politics, style and substance complement each other. Very often, they are two sides of the same coin. The Prime Minister and I have shared something like 700 meetings of Cabinet or shadow Cabinet during the past 18 years, and some 400 hours alongside each other, at more than 30 international summit meetings. For both of us, I suspect, it is a pretty daunting record. The House might well feel that something more than simple matters of style would be necessary to rupture such a well-tried relationship. It was a privilege to serve as my right hon. Friend's first Chancellor of the Exchequer ; to share in the transformation of our industrial relations scene ; to help launch our free market programme, commencing with the abolition of exchange control ; and, above all, to achieve such substantial success against inflation, getting it down within four years from 22 per cent. to 4 per cent. upon the basis of the strict monetary discipline involved in the medium-term financial strategy. Not one of our economic achievements would have been possible without the courage and leadership of my right hon. Friend--and, if I may say so, they possibly derived some little benefit from the presence of a Chancellor who was not exactly a wet himself. It was a great honour to serve for six years as Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary and to share with my right hon. Friend in some notable achievements in the European Community--from Fontainebleau to the Single European Act. But it was as we moved on to consider the crucial monetary issues in the European context that I came to feel increasing concern. Some of the reasons for that anxiety were made very clear by my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Lawson) in his resignation speech just over 12 months ago. Like him, I concluded at least five years ago that the conduct of our policy against inflation could no longer rest solely on attempts to measure and control the domestic money supply. We had no doubt that we should be helped in that battle, and, indeed, in other respects, by joining the exchange rate mechanism of the European monetary system. There was, or should have been, nothing novel about joining the ERM ; it has been a long-standing commitment. For a quarter of a century after the second world war, we found that the very similar Bretton Woods regime did serve as a useful discipline. Now, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister acknowledged two weeks ago, our entry into the ERM can be seen as an "extra discipline for keeping down inflation."--[ Official Report, 30 October 1990 ; Vol. 178, c. 888.] However, it must be said that that practical conclusion has been achieved only at the cost of substantial damage to her Administration and, more serious still, to its inflation achievements. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Blaby explained : "The real tragedy is that we did not join the exchange rate mechanism at least five years ago." As he also made clear, "That was not for want of trying."--[ Official Report, 23 October 1990 ; Vol. 178, c. 216.] Indeed, the so-called Madrid conditions came into existence only after the then Chancellor and I, as Foreign Secretary, made it clear that we could not continue in office unless a specific commitment to join the ERM was made. As the House will no doubt have observed, neither member of that particular partnership now remains in office. Our successor as Chancellor of the Exchequer has, during the past year, had to devote a great deal of his considerable talents to demonstrating exactly how those Madrid conditions have been attained, so as to make it possible to fulfil a commitment whose achievement has long been in the national interest. It is now, alas, impossible to resist the conclusion that today's higher rates of inflation could well have been avoided had the question of ERM membership been properly considered and resolved at a much earlier stage. There are, I fear, developing grounds for similar anxiety over the handling --not just at and after the Rome summit--of the wider, much more open question of economic and monetary union. Let me first make clear certain important points on which I have no disagreement with my right hon. Friend, the Prime Minister. I do not regard the Delors report as some kind of sacred text that has to be accepted, or even rejected, on the nod. But it is an important working document. As I have often made plain, it is seriously deficient in significant respects. I do not regard the Italian presidency's management of the Rome summit as a model of its kind--far from it. It was much the same, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will recall, in Milan some five years ago. I do not regard it as in any sense wrong for Britain to make criticisms of that kind plainly and courteously, nor in any sense wrong for us to do so, if necessary, alone. As I have already made clear, I have, like the Prime Minister and other right hon. Friends, fought too many European battles in a minority of one to have any illusions on that score. But it is crucially important that we should conduct those arguments upon the basis of a clear understanding of the true relationship between this country, the Community and our Community partners. And it is here, I fear, that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister increasingly risks leading herself and others astray in matters of substance as well as of style. It was the late Lord Stockton, formerly Harold Macmillan, who first put the central point clearly. As long ago as 1962, he argued that we had to place and keep ourselves within the EC. He saw it as essential then, as it is today, not to cut ourselves off from the realities of power ; not to retreat into a ghetto of sentimentality about our past and so diminish our own control over our own destiny in the future. The pity is that the Macmillan view had not been perceived more clearly a decade before in the 1950s. It would have spared us so many of the struggles of the last 20 years had we been in the Community from the outset ; had we been ready, in the much too simple phrase, to "surrender some sovereignty" at a much earlier stage. If we had been in from the start, as almost everybody now acknowledges, we should have had more, not less, influence over the Europe in which we live today. We should never forget the lesson of that isolation, of being on the outside looking in, for the conduct of today's affairs. We have done best when we have seen the Community not as a static entity to be resisted and contained, but as an active process which we can shape, often decisively, provided that we allow ourselves to be fully engaged in it, with confidence, with enthusiasm and in good faith. We must at all costs avoid presenting ourselves yet again with an over- simplified choice, a false antithesis, a bogus dilemma, between one alternative, starkly labelled "co-operation between independent sovereign states" and a second, equally crudely labelled alternative, "centralised, federal super-state", as if there were no middle way in between. We commit a serious error if we think always in terms of "surrendering" sovereignty and seek to stand pat for all time on a given deal--by proclaiming, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did two weeks ago, that we have "surrendered enough". The European enterprise is not and should not be seen like that--as some kind of zero sum game. Sir Winston Churchill put it much more positively 40 years ago, when he said : "It is also possible and not less agreeable to regard" this sacrifice or merger of national sovereignty "as the gradual assumption by all the nations concerned of that larger sovereignty which can alone protect their diverse and distinctive customs and characteristics and their national traditions." I have to say that I find Winston Churchill's perception a good deal more convincing, and more encouraging for the interests of our nation, than the nightmare image sometimes conjured up by my right hon. Friend, who seems sometimes to look out upon a continent that is positively teeming with ill- intentioned people, scheming, in her words, to "extinguish democracy", to "dissolve our national identities" and to lead us "through the back-door into a federal Europe". What kind of vision is that for our business people, who trade there each day, for our financiers, who seek to make London the money capital of Europe or for all the young people of today? These concerns are especially important as we approach the crucial topic of economic and monetary union. We must be positively and centrally involved in this debate and not fearfully and negatively detached. The costs of disengagement here could be very serious indeed. There is talk, of course, of a single currency for Europe. I agree that there are many difficulties about the concept--both economic and political. Of course, as I said in my letter of resignation, none of us wants the imposition of a single currency. But that is not the real risk. The 11 others cannot impose their solution on the 12th country against its will, but they can go ahead without us. The risk is not imposition but isolation. The real threat is that of leaving ourselves with no say in the monetary arrangements that the rest of Europe chooses for itself, with Britain once again scrambling to join the club later, after the rules have been set and after the power has been distributed by others to our disadvantage. That would be the worst possible outcome. It is to avoid just that outcome and to find a compromise both acceptable in the Government and sellable in Europe that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has put forward his hard ecu proposal. This lays careful emphasis on the possibility that the hard ecu as a common currency could, given time, evolve into a single currency. I have of course supported the hard ecu plan. But after Rome, and after the comments of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister two weeks ago, there is grave danger that the hard ecu proposal is becoming untenable, because two things have happened. The first is that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has appeared to rule out from the start any compromise at any stage on any of the basic components that all the 11 other countries believe to be a part of EMU--a single currency or a permanently fixed exchange rate, a central bank or common monetary policy. Asked whether we would veto any arrangement that jeopardised the pound sterling, my right hon. Friend replied simply, "Yes." That statement means not that we can block EMU but that they can go ahead without us. Is that a position that is likely to ensure, as I put it in my resignation letter, that "we hold, and retain, a position of influence in this vital debate"? I fear not. Rather, to do so, we must, as I said, take care not to rule in or rule out any one solution absolutely. We must be seen to be part of the same negotiation. The second thing that happened was, I fear, even more disturbing. Reporting to this House, my right hon. Friend almost casually remarked that she did not think that many people would want to use the hard ecu anyway--even as a common currency, let alone as a single one. It was remarkable--indeed, it was tragic--to hear my right hon. Friend dismissing, with such personalised incredulity, the very idea that the hard ecu proposal might find growing favour amoung the peoples of Europe, just as it was extraordinary to hear her assert that the whole idea of EMU might be open for consideration only by future generations. Those future generations are with us today. How on earth are the Chancellor and the Governor of the Bank of England, commending the hard ecu as they strive to, to be taken as serious participants in the debate against that kind of background noise? I believe that both the Chancellor and the Governor are cricketing enthusiasts, so I hope that there is no monopoly of cricketing metaphors. It is rather like sending your opening batsmen to the crease only for them to find, the moment the first balls are bowled, that their bats have been broken before the game by the team captain. The point was perhaps more sharply put by a British business man, trading in Brussels and elsewhere, who wrote to me last week, stating : "People throughout Europe see our Prime Minister's finger-wagging and hear her passionate, No, No, No', much more clearly than the content of the carefully worded formal texts." He went on : "It is too easy for them to believe that we all share her attitudes ; for why else has she been our Prime Minister for so long?" My correspondent concluded : "This is a desperately serious situation for our country." And sadly, I have to agree. The tragedy is--and it is for me personally, for my party, for our whole people and for my right hon. Friend herself, a very real tragedy--that the Prime Minister's perceived attitude towards Europe is running increasingly serious risks for the future of our nation. It risks minimising our influence and maximising our chances of being once again shut out. We have paid heavily in the past for late starts and squandered opportunities in Europe. We dare not let that happen again. If we detach ourselves completely, as a party or a nation, from the middle ground of Europe, the effects will be incalculable and very hard ever to correct. In my letter of resignation, which I tendered with the utmost sadness and dismay, I said : "Cabinet Government is all about trying to persuade one another from within". That was my commitment to Government by persuasion--persuading colleagues and the nation. I have tried to do that as Foreign Secretary and since, but I realise now that the task has become futile : trying to stretch the meaning of words beyond what was credible, and trying to pretend that there was a common policy when every step forward risked being subverted by some casual comment or impulsive answer. The conflict of loyalty, of loyalty to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister--and, after all, in two decades together that instinct of loyalty is still very real--and of loyalty to what I perceive to be the true interests of the nation, has become all too great. I no longer believe it possible to resolve that conflict from within this Government. That is why I have resigned. In doing so, I have done what I believe to be right for my party and my country. The time has come for others to consider their own response to the tragic conflict of loyalties with which I have myself wrestled for perhaps too long. This afternoon at New Europeans' public meeting, EU citizens from across London and the UK debated a new deal for a new Europe and Britain’s EU membership.
4 Freedoms (UK EPP) Party leader Dirk Hazell urged: “Europe’s leaders must work together to offer a genuine basis for hope not fear.” “Mainstream politicians must resist siren populist calls, whilst tackling their underlying causes: two examples where action is needed are the lack of affordable housing and the unacceptable gap between rich and poor. Scandals from football to finance highlight the need for the powerful to become truly accountable. Privilege and top salaries should be matched by real responsibility towards all Europeans. The unique worth of every individual person must again be better respected and as far as possible fulfilled,” Hazell said. In a few days, on 7 October, President Hollande and Chancellor Merkel will deliver an historic joint address to the European Parliament in Strasbourg. “This Franco-German cross-party move is welcome: Europe united in freedom and solidarity can again lead the world in aligning economic, environmental and social sustainability,” noted Hazell. Hazell stated: “The EPP Platform for the 2014 European election is a real New Deal for Europe based on opportunity and solidarity. A single digital market worth €1000 per European per year can free the talents of Europe’s youth and SMEs, creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs. People-power not vested interests must prevail so we all benefit from the security of an energy union. And Europeans should, like Americans, benefit from a single capital market finally unleashing the real growth potential of SMEs across Europe.” “As for EU rule-making, regulation should be as local as practicable but, for example, recent revelations highlight the need for the European Environment Agency to be empowered and required to audit national regulation of EU environmental Directives, with prominent annual reports to the European Parliament. As Europeans we are entitled to know we can trust the word of laws to become deeds,” Hazell asserted. Hazell stressed: “We must re-build the bridges Cameron so foolishly tore down during his 2005 Conservative Party leadership bid. Pro-EU Tories should return to the mainstream centre right EPP family of Ireland’s Enda Kenny, Spain’s Mariano Rajoy, Poland’s Ewa Kopacz and Germany’s Angela Merkel. The UK needs to recognise opportunities and respect limits, win back friends across Europe and restore declining British influence. It is not too late to correct past mistakes through deft diplomacy ." Hazell concluded: “We must focus on persuading people that the UK needs to stay united within an ever closer union. Our United Kingdom will better influence the wider World and secure our own prosperity inside our Europe united in diversity.” Warning of UK Electoral Commission political bias, the 4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP) is calling for the four party-politically appointed Commissioners to be removed. After the unlawful disqualification of the party before the 2015 General Election - and censoring of the “EPP” acronym - Freedom of Information requests exposed alarming levels of Electoral Commission prejudice and discrimination.
“As the regulator of British elections and political parties, the Electoral Commission must be genuinely impartial and transparent. If the forthcoming EU referendum is to go smoothly, there can be no suspicion of malpractice or misconduct. The Electoral Commission’s current construct raises too many questions over competence and partiality,” warned 4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP) leader Dirk Hazell: “Party political appointees must be replaced by neutral judicial and regulatory experts.” “With British democracy changing, legitimate new parties must be able to trust the Electoral Commission's integrity and reliability: we cannot.” noted Hazell: “After months of opaque conspiracy inside the Commission, our party was discriminatorily and peremptorily banned, with no wrongdoing alleged. This brazen denial of democracy reveals unacceptable levels of internal incompetence and bias.” “Following Freedom of Information requests, evidence of Government intervention must also now be explained”, Hazell urged: “When the Electoral Commission finally contacted us, their letter proved misleading – with at least five subsequent changes over what was supposed to be done! The Electoral Commission never demonstrated that their conduct was lawful. In fact, our Queen’s Counsel - and, we now know, the Commission’s external legal Counsel - saw no lawful basis for what the Commission did.” “In tomorrow’s (Mon - 24 Aug) detailed letter to the Electoral Commission Chair we raise more than 20 questions. The invaluable Freedom of Information process helped uncover how the Electoral Commission is failing in its duties as watchdog and regulator. We actively considered litigation, but the Commission’s unlawful action and other delaying tactics in early 2015 had already effectively knocked us out of the General Election”, observed Hazell. The Electoral Commission’s wider record is mixed, leading to other calls for fundamental reform. “The electoral watchdog’s shockingly muted reaction to administrative mass disqualification of non-British EU voters in the 2014 European election (70% fewer were duly registered than in 2009 according to evidence received by the Select Committee) sends the wrong signal to any future Government tempted to make it harder for other ‘inconvenient’ minorities to register or vote in referendums or elections,” said Hazell. Hazell concluded: “Fundamental reform of the Electoral Commission - not scrapping - is the answer. We welcome the Law Commission’s current examination of the increasingly complex, fragmented and difficult to use Electoral law in the UK.” - A full text of the Party’s letter to the Electoral Commission with a chronological attachment and links to relevant source material is available via this hyperlink. |
4 Freedoms Party (UK EPP)Promoted by Alliance EPP (European People's Party) UK, &/or All 4 Freedoms, &/or Alliance for London, &/or Both Unions Party of Northern Ireland all/any of UK EPP, Office 103, 405 Kings Road, London, SW10 0BB Archives
November 2022
Categories |