Last night I attended the Bruges Group meeting at which John Redwood MP (Conservative), Kate Hoey MP (Labour) and Diane James MEP (Ukip) spoke on the subject of British Politics After the Euro-Elections.



The views which follow are obviously mine, but at the same time, it is hoped that they will be seen as objective.

All three ‘addresses’ were a tad superficial in content – there was great mention of the need for a referendum and the timing, but no mention of how we leave the EU or the myriad of matters involved therein. That was a subject that would have formed my question to each of the speakers, unfortunately Barry Legge who chaired the meeting did not select me.

From the reception that greeted Diane James, one could be forgiven for believing that something like 90% of the audience were members of, or followers of, Ukip. This is the first time I had seen her ‘live’ and it has to be said she was very poised, confident and therefore articulate – not that I agreed with what she said.

Beginning her address James informed us that prior to becoming a local councillor she had worked as a business analyst where her job was to look at the whys and wherefores to ascertain the reasons behind any situation, something which she failed to do really where the subject of the talk was concerned. She repeated the ‘earthquake’ scenario where Ukip was concerned, continuing that that event had happened Europe as well. She covered a number of topics including her belief that NOC where local councils was concerned being a good thing; criticised the ‘trial by media’ that Ukip underwent prior to Thursday 22nd May; critical of the PR gurus of the other three parties as she believed they damaged politics, maintaining that were the UK able to deport ‘undesirables’ the first three out would be an American, an Australian and a South African.

Interestingly, she made the point that during canvassing, prior to 22nd May, all she heard from the public was a need for honesty from their politicians and that they wanted facts, not soundbites.

Kate Hoey congrtulated Ukip on their ‘achievement’, although querying the ‘earthquake’ scenario. She made the point that ‘we all’ want a referendum and ‘out’ and stating that in her view the referendum should take place before 2017. In ‘life after the EU’ she felt that as the UK had ‘betrayed’ the Commonwealth, that that was an area that needed attention where future trade deals were concerned.

Hoey, too, made an interesting comment and that was to do with the ‘Out’ campaign in that she maintained that it had to be united and needed to ‘speak with one voice’ (not her phrase) continuing by saying that egos needed to be moved aside, likewise those who felt they should lead that campaign needed to step aside for others more suited to the task.

John Redwood began with a little dig’ at Ukip by pointing out that while they had done well, two-thirds of the electorate had not exercised their franchise. He made the point that he wished MEPs would put aside their differences to block/amend/dilute what he called the torrent of legislation coming from Brussels; forgetting of course they can do no such thing as their combined voices amount to less than ten percent of the European Parliament. He also praised Cameron in his renegotiation aims, commenting that he had managed to cut the EU budget.

Where, to their credit, Hoey and James did ‘talk’ to us, Redwood gave the impression of lofty disdain, as if addressing a group of unknowing and illiterate people. He can perhaps be forgiven as the lack f knowledge in the room was frightening but then that lack of knowledge did not just apply to the audience.

When stating that the lack of knowledge was frightening, this became obvious once the Q&A began – witness: As we pay £55million a day, if we withdrew what would the panel spend that money on. Hoey housing; Redwood made the point that we would not have £55million as some of that would to be spent shoring up agriculture as one example; James: NHS. Another question put to the panel was would they unite under Nigel Farage were he to lead the ‘Out’ campaign. Hoey was of the opinion that it should be a ‘broad’ campaign (but did not explain what she meant by ‘broad’) and that there should be no figurehead. James was of the firm opinion that there should be a figurehead. I can’t recall what Redwood said, it was that uninspiring. Not one of the panel pointed out that Farage, in his present position, would not be eligible to fulfill that role.

Yet again I left a Bruges Group meeting disheartened and dismayed not just with the lack of knowledge and misguided views the audience had, but also that of those who believe they are our intellectual superiors.