The Conservatives, in turning on Adam Afriyie, have revealed their true colours

Last week Adam Afriyie announced he was putting down an amendment to the EU Referendum Bill, which would set 23rd October 2014 as the date on which an In/Out Referendum would be held. In its current form, the Bill only promises a referendum to be held before the end of 2017.

There is a lot of merit in such a proposal. Given our current level of contributions to the EU, delaying a referendum by three years until 2017 would see our handing over a further £50billion to those unelected eurocrats before we are even given a say on whether we wish to continue doing so. We are told by the usual scaremongers that the ongoing debate is causing uncertainty and risks damaging trade; not an argument I accept, but an early referendum would quash any uncertainty there may be.

And that’s not to mention that a clear, consistent and growing majority of people want a referendum – now.

The response to Mr Afriyie’s amendment from his own Conservative colleagues has been startling. Instead of supporting his call for an early referendum like the eurosceptics many of them purport to be, he has been roundly abused. He has been branded a “fantatist” who has “lost touch with reality” by Conservative MPs briefing against him, anonymously of course. Not to be outdone, the Conservative-supporting press have branded him “a wally”.
Even the erudite Jacob Rees-Mogg got in on the act. Writing for the Telegraph, Rees-Mogg sought to explain how the amendment wasn’t helping the Eurosceptic cause and called for Mr Afriyie to “pipe down”. His reasons were twofold.

First, he declares the idea of renegotiating our relationship with Europe and seeking to repatriate powers to be eminently sensible. Unlike the Prime Minister, he went as far as to name what he sees as the minimum aims for renegotiation: opt-outs from the common fisheries policy, financial regulation and most importantly the free movement of people. And therein lies the problem.

It is incomprehensible to imagine that the Prime Minister will be able to secure the repatriation of any meaningful powers, particularly as the Commission has clearly set its face against it. It beggars belief they will concede ground on the free movement of people when this is the very bedrock of the European federalist dream. It cannot and will not happen, and it seems crazy to argue in favour of three years of negotiations which you know from the outset will not result in a satisfactory outcome. That way madness lies.
Secondly, he argues time is need to negotiate our exit under Article 50 of the Treaty on European Union, which would allow for transitional arrangements to be agreed thereby reassuring voters they have nothing to fear from voting to leave the EU. Again, these would be negotiations doomed to failure.

Make no mistake, the Commission want to see the UK remain part of the European project (or should I say they want us to continue to bankroll it). So why on earth would they risk damaging the prospects of an ‘in’ vote by agreeing to smooth our path towards the exit door? It makes no sense whatsoever. Instead, once an ‘out’ vote has been secured, we would be in a much stronger negotiating position as a net importer of goods and services from European countries. To borrow and paraphrase a recent quote, Mr Mercedes really isn’t going to want to stop selling us cars.

So why has there been such a vitriolic response to the calls for an early referendum? The answer is patently obvious.

Ever since the Conservatives reneged, in 2010, on their promise to deliver a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty, there have been calls for an immediate in-out referendum on Europe, from within the Conservative party and from without. These calls were contemptuously and consistently rejected, right up until 2013. Why the sudden u-turn?

Between 2010 and 2013 something incredible happened: UKIP started doing rather well. From strong showings in parliamentary by-elections up and down the country, to gaining hundreds of council seats in local elections, we gained momentum. Whilst the Conservative party finally admitted its membership had halved during the years of Cameron’s leadership, UKIP’s had doubled in no time at all. That’s not to mention we now consistently poll ahead of the Liberal Democrats, making us the third party in British politics, and continue to punch above our weight whenever and wherever elections are held.

Suddenly, Conservative MPs with tiny majorities (such as James Wharton, the sponsor of the Referendum Bill and my own local MP) began to get twitchy and panic, and out of their terror the Bill was born. Not through any principled desire to give the voters the referendum they demand, but to kick the whole issue of Europe into the long grass until the next general election in a desperate bid to curtail the rise of UKIP.

But the electorate are neither stupid nor gullible. We may never know the real motives behind Adam Afriyie’s tabled amendment, but the Conservative party’s reaction to it tells us all we need to know about the party machine’s motives for the bill.

This article was first published on UKIP Daily.

Why I left the Conservatives part 2: Gay 'marriage' and the quadruple lock lie

Whilst it may not be a major concern to many readers, I have decided to bump this piece up the pecking order following today's front page story in the Daily Mail (read it here) that David Cameron now regrets having "forced through gay marriage law".

We know how you feel, Dave

Despite a pledge to introduce gay marriage not being in the 2010 manifesto of any major party, and despite the public having never been asked for their opinion (Cameron's sham consultation only asked how, not if, legislation should be introduced), the Bill received Royal Assent and passed into law in July 2013.

In an attempt to assuage the fears of her backbench colleagues, Maria Miller announced the so-called 'quadruple lock' designed, we are told, to prevent any religious leader being forced to conduct same-sex 'marriages' against their beliefs. Her statement to the House of Commons focused particularly on the Church of England, given its unique position as the established church and which had opposed the legislation.

The quadruple lock consists of the following measures:

1. The legislation states that neither religious organisations as a whole nor individual ministers will be forced to hold same-sex weddings on their premises;

 

2. Parliament will amend the Equalities Act so that no discrimination claims can be brought against religious organisations who refuse to conduct gay marriages;

 

3. Religious organisations who do support gay marriage can opt-in, and then their individual ministers will also then need to opt-in before they can conduct the ceremonies; and

 

4. The legislation will explicitly state that it would be illegal for the Church of England and Wales to marry same sex couple: the Church of England had already said that it did not want to carry out same-sex partnerships.

This lock would, we were told, ensured "beyond doubt" there could not be a successful action brought in the courts against any church for failing to conduct a same sex 'marriage'.

Regrettably, and all too predictably, the 'quadruple lock' is not worth the fresh air into which Maria Miller's words were breathed.

On 24th June 2010, a chamber of the European Court of Human Rights delivered its judgment in the matter of Schalk and Kopf v. Austria. The applicants claimed they had been discriminated against as Austrian law did not allow them, as a same-sex couple, to contract marriage.

Their claim did not focus on any specific benefits available to married couples which they were unable to take advantage of. Rather, their claim focused solely on the fact they were being prevented from contracting marriage based only on their sexual orientation. In other words, they argued that a law defining marriage as being solely between one man and one woman was discriminatory.

Although the chamber of the Court found, unanimously, against the applicants, the detailed judgment handed down puts the lie to the 'quadruple lock'.

Whilst the European Court's case-law had previously determined "...the emotional and sexual relationship of a same-sex couple constitutes 'private life'" [para. 92], the judgment in this case ruled for the first time such relationships also constituted 'family life', because "... the rapid revolution of social attitudes towards same-sex couples has taken place in many member states" [para. 93].

So as a result of legislation sanctioning same-sex marriage and/or civil partnerships having been enacted by a number of EU countries, the European Courts have already started to re-write the rules.

In ruling that, notwithstanding the new case-law it had just created, it was not discriminatory for states to legislate only for opposite-sex marriage, it was made eminently clear this position was not set in stone.

The judgement reads:

"The Court cannot but note that there is an emerging European consensus towards legal recognition of same-sex couples. Moreover, this tendency has developed rapidly over the past decade. Nevertheless, there is not yet [emphasis added] a majority of States providing for legal recognition of same-sex couples. The area in question must therefore still be regarded as one of evolving rights with no established consensus, where States must also enjoy a margin of appreciation in the timing of the introduction of legislative changes " [para. 105]

In other words, once a majority of EU countries - or more likely, those countries constituting a majority of residents of the EU - have legalised gay marriage, the Court would see its way open to rule it discriminatory (i.e. illegal) for member states not to permit same-sex marriage.


In those circumstances, not only would the UK have then been compelled by the EU (had it not already) to sanction same-sex marriage but the Church of England, as the established Church and de facto extension of the state, would equally be compelled to conduct same-sex marriages.

So there we have it. Irrespective of the Conservatives' 'quadruple lock', the European Court has already indicated it is only a matter of time before it forces all member states to recognise and conduct same-sex marriages.

But that is not the worst of it. Look again at when this judgment was handed down - 24th June 2010. Long before the government brought forward its legislation, and long before Maria Miller announced the 'quadruple lock'.

In other words, the announcement on the 'quadruple lock' was made despite full knowledge of its long-term impotence, and of the judgment of the European Court.

It goes without saying that I could no longer remain a member of a party which not only brought forward this legislation without any democratic mandate to do so and whilst ignoring the millions of faith in this country who objected, but who have lied to us in doing so.

I am proud to have joined UKIP, the only party to stand up for faith and the traditional, the only, definition of marriage.