NEC Election Interview: Michael McGough

Last week we promised a series of interviews with NEC election candidates.  The first one is with Michael McGough.

Michael, you've been a very active campaigner for a long time and you're involved in a number of group - the CIB, the Freedom Association and Better off Out amongst others - do you think your involvement in these other groups will help or hinder you in the NEC?

It can only help, there is no conflict as all are unconditional EU withdrawalists. A current NEC member actively involved at the top table in those bodies will further 'cross pollination' of ideas and campaigns and bring more cohesion to the withdrawalist movement, countering some of the criticism that there are too many disparate anti-EU groups.  UKIP will of course be my priority as the others are only pressure groups whereas UKIP, although a pressure group itself, is first and foremost a politrical party and only elected politicians will get us out of the EU.

The other groups are cross party and working closely with withdrawalists from other parties increases the chances that they will eventually join us,the only withdrawalist 'show in town' .Over the years I have witnessed a massive shift in groups such as TFA and the Bruges Group towards significant UKIP membership from what was once mainly Tories.CIB has a significant input from Labour and Unions many of whose members increasingly vote UKIP.

One problem facing UKIP is the perception that we are a eurosceptic arm of the Tories. There are a number of former Labour and Lib Dem supporters working their way up the ranks in UKIP but I think it's fair to say the membership is predominantly conservative leaning. Other than closer working with other eurosceptic groups, how do you think UKIP can broaden its appeal to attract voters outside of its traditional hunting grounds?

We must better communicate our excellent policies and the fact that we are the only credible party working in the national interest and that of all of our citizens.We need more capable public facing spokesman who aren't obviously 'Tory like' - we must be seen to be the party for the worker and those seeking work, UK jobs for UK workers and their children resonates.


As unemployment and taxes rise and already overstretched services are cutback we must use every electoral opportunity, especially town,district and county council elections to explain that only we seek to stop the burden of immigration from the EU (as well as elsewhere) to protect jobs and housing and that if we didn't pay so much to the EU many services could be maintained. We must have leaflets specifically aimed at Labour voters for use in traditional Labour areas .Lib Dem voters (what do they believe in?) will be harder to attract but many will be sympathetic to the same message after the coaltion experience. The key will be to target these groups rather than relying on generic material aimed at Tories.

We have tended to project a "Tory boy" image with our spokemen - Lord Pearson, Lord Monckton, David Campbell Bannerman, Nigel Farage. The top 3 posts in the party and our most prolific spokesman are held by what our friends on the left would term "toffs". This undoubtedly puts off a lot of potential members, is it something the party should look to change or should we try and capitalise on it?

I've partly addressed this above. I certainly think we need many more capable spokesman and they should be drawn from across the social and political spectrum within our party. We do of course have Gerard Batten a working class Londoner with a union background and our very own scouser Chairman Paul Nuttall, by no means a toff. They have both performed well in the media. While I want a full cross section represented I don't think it is the working class who are put off by toffs - they very often like and respect them in charge. The people who are more likely to be put off are the 30-50 year old metrosexual self satisfied middle classes. Having an Old Etonian leader of maturity and gravitas with successful business and life experience does much to show how lightweight and inexperiencd the young OE leading the country is. We are the party of all the people but many have yet to realise this.

People with money - even old money - tend to have it for a reason, I would rather a wealthy and successful businessman ran the country than, for example, the dour son of a Presbyterian minister. If only more people could see the sense in this!

I agree. The person you allude to supposedly had a moral compass; if he had, it pointed in the wrong direction. No sound businessman would have got our economy into such a state and destroyed the finest private pension provision in Europe.

One final question: if every member of the new NEC was given the chance to introduce one change unopposed, what would yours be?

I'd set up a shadow team with competence and media savviness to convey that we mean business and could govern if given the chance. This would be an extension of the policy groups with each subject spokesman supported by experts available at the end of a Blackberry pre media outings. There is already sufficient people of ability, experience and knowledge within the party to achieve this.

Thanks Micheal, best of luck with the election.

Friends, Britons, Conservatives - lend us your vote!

MICHAEL MCGOUGH argues that conservatives should vote UKIP in the Euro-elections

I AM a conservative, I vote for conservative policies but I have for so long been let down by the Conservative Party which has been compliant as we have been drawn into ever closer union with our fellow European Union member states, treaty by treaty. We have only once been given our say on EU membership and that was by a Labour government in 1975. Is it right that the generations unable to vote then are constrained by that ancient vote, which only referred to an economic arrangement?

For some time now, in anticipation of the next General Election delivering change to a Conservative administration, the media (Financial Times, Spectator and Andrew Marr for example) have been sponsoring the idea that David Cameron is a hardened Eurosceptic. But is he? Past evidence would indicate a short period of tenure if that were so. We must never forget how Lady Thatcher was removed subsequent to her Bruges Speech, nor Iain Duncan Smith after his in Prague. Discarding the previous robust party policy of repatriation of fishing rights, appointing a Europhile head of
candidate selection and remaining in the federalist European People’s Party despite promising not to do so ,does little to confirm him as “one of us”, for I am certain that TFA Members of all parties are confirmed Eurosceptics. Cameron says that he will definitely leave the EPP after the 2009 European Elections, finally delivering on his leadership election promise. However Miro Topolanek, the Czech Prime Minister, Cameron’s partner in forming his proposed post-EPP grouping in the European Parliament, is “committed” to ratifying the Lisbon Treaty, hardly an ideal partner to roll back the EU.

As soon as the Conservative MEPs had elected a new leader, the EurophileTimothy Kirkhope, Charles Tannock suggested, on Conservative Home, that they should stay in the EPP, for reasons of status.What of Shadow Foreign Secretary William Hague? I recall his commitment to opposition of the Euro was limited to the life of one parliament. With the Pound collapsing towards parity with the Euro and the current “beneficial” economic and financial crisis, demands for us to adopt the currency of the European Superstate will come again and be harder to oppose post-ratification of the Lisbon. Treaty which requires it. We have an opt-out, but nothing is forever.

Speaking at a Freedom in the City talk, Professor Haseler of the Federal Trust confirmed that the Europhiles would push for this and that Roland Rudd, Chairman of Britain for New Europe had an article calling for this on the Evening Standard website (15.11.08) followed by Will Hutton in the Observer (16.11.08).A major plank of the Conservatives’ European manifesto will be apparent strident opposition to the Lisbon Treaty and a commitment to hold a future referendum, post a general election. This played well until David Cameron made his “Harlow Declaration” diluting his initial commitment. Policy is now: “So if the Lisbon Treaty is not yet in force at the time of the next General Election and a Conservative Government is elected we would put the Treaty to a referendum of the British people, recommending a “no” vote.

If the British people rejected the Treaty, we would withdraw Britain’s ratification of it. But if the Treaty is in force we will be in a different situation. In our view, then, political integration would have gone too far and the Treaty would lack democratic legitimacy in this country and we would not let matters rest there.” What does “we would not let matters rest there” mean? We will be sold the familiar, but sad old tale of unceasing efforts to renegotiate our position in the EU, so much easier from within. Nigel Farage, at the Bruges Group meeting in Birmingham, recalled a cartoon of a fish within a fishing net telling another outside
“it is much easier to negotiate from within”.

If Cameron was really opposed to Lisbon he could kill it dead NOW, by offering a referendum, come what may, without qualification. If Lisbon is no good before ratification it cannot be good after. If, because of treaty law, a NO vote in such a referendum meant we would have to make provision to leave the EU then so be it. We would, as The Freedom Association’s own campaign states, be Better Off Out of the EU anyway. Where are the Conservatives crying out about yet another year of unsatisfactory EU accounts? With losses of 2p in the £1 being deemed acceptable by the auditors and with actual losses being greater such as 11p in the £1 for structural funds (6 billion Euros) one would expect a Shadow Chancellor to be outraged, not pussyfooting around the margins of employment taxes.

There will be no referendum, but there will be an early opportunity for all those opposed to Lisbon and everything else that is wrong with our membership of the EU clearly to highlight this. Voting for the UK Independence Party on 4 June next year and securing yet more UKIP MEPs will send a message to the EU, the Government, and most importantly,David Cameron, that we too seek change.Lend us your vote and change your country put country before party. I am certain that David Cameron would then be forced to change and promise us the policies the majority demand. If he does that, I envisage that all conservatives shall once again be able to vote together at a general election.

Michael McGough is a Freedom Association Management Committee Member and UK Independence Party European “Parliament” Candidate for the Eastern Counties

michael.mcgough@lineone.net

MEP CANDIDATES QUESTION CLAIMS BY EU’S CHIEF ACCOUNTANT

Two of the UKIP MEP candidates for the European elections in June 2009 were among a handful of accountants from business who attended a presentation of the EU accounts on Tuesday evening (11.11.08) at the Chartered Accountants Hall in the City of London. Andrew Smith and Michael McGough are both chartered accountants and they are number 3 and 6 on the Eastern Counties UKIP candidate list.

Despite continuing high error rates amounting to £5.02 billion of mis-spent funds in 2007, the EU’s Chief Accountant claims he received a clean report for last year. The presentation was made by Brian Gray, the British chartered accountant who replaced Marta Andreasen as Chief Accountant of the EU. Ms Andreasen was sacked by the EU after she refused to sign defective accounts, and she is standing as a UKIP MEP candidate in the South East. Mr McGough pointed out that Mr Gray’s claim was inconsistent with the auditor’s report and an investigation is under way.

Andrew Smith was particularly shocked when David Bostock of the European Court of Auditors stated that "Nobody seems to care if [there is] a high rate of error [in the EU accounts] for Structural Funds, except a few extreme Eurosceptics. Nobody suggests stopping these programmes due to a high rate of error". After the meeting Mr Smith said: “UKIP cares and would certainly stop such programmes as the auditor's casual approach to errors is totally unacceptable. In 2007 the EU had to recover wrongful payments of EUR 1.5 billion but the amount which was irrecoverable was not disclosed."

Michael McGough expressed amazement that Brian Gray's preferred solution when recipients of EU funds could not or would not comply with spending conditions was to make the conditions easier to meet. “It appears that an error rate of 2 per cent is accepted quite happily by the EU and up to 20 per cent in some overseas aid programmes. If such an error rate were made by Essex County Council, for example, there would be uproar.”