Ukip MEPs are failing to engage with the political process. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The frustrating reality of having Ukip represent the UK’s interests in Europe

I’m afraid to say we made the wrong choice as Ukip are beginning to prove time and time again their insignificance in Europe. 

The European Parliament took a vote of confidence today on the newly appointed Commission of Jean Claude Juncker. The vote, triggered by the Luxleaks tax avoidance revelations, was called by the EFDD group in the Parliament of which Ukip makes up a majority. The vote failed by 461 votes to 101 and Nigel Farage didn’t even turn up.

The Luxleaks scandal is very worrying – under Juncker's watch as Prime Minister, it looks like Luxembourg arranged at least 300 secret deals with multi-national companies to help them avoid tax – and he must be held to account for this. But Ukip’s moves should be seen for what they really are: another futile heckling tactic which is more about grabbing the headlines than real action

May 22 2014, the day that Ukip won the European elections, I’m afraid to say we made the wrong choice as Ukip are beginning to prove time and time again their insignificance in Europe. I understand the frustration with the traditional three main parties who offer little more than different shades of business as usual, but a vote for Ukip is a vote for empty gesture politics.

As revealed earlier this year, Ukip MEPs are failing to engage with the political process as usually they don’t bother to show up and, when they do, they can often be found heckling and shouting abuse across the chamber.

This may not be such a scandal if they weren't gaining such huge benefits from being our main representation in Europe – but the scary part is that they receive millions of pounds each year in salaries and funding for their group in the parliament. That was why Ukip were so panicked last month when their EFDD group nearly collapsed; they would have lost an estimated £1m. They did manage to save their group in the end – but only by welcoming an MEP into their group who has been labelled a racist and a holocaust denier.

It is becoming increasingly clear that Ukip MEPs aren’t the right people to represent our interests in Europe. On most key issues you would be hard pushed to quote any Ukip achievements. For example, 80 per cent of environmental legislation in the UK comes from the EU – most of it providing many benefits to the environment, but more often than not Ukip MEPs have opposed such moves. Many of our workplace and social protections also come from Europe, again, no thanks to work done by Ukip.

The vote of confidence in team Juncker may be a successful attempt by Ukip to position themselves as the anti-establishment party in the media, but as Owen Jones pointed out this week, this couldn’t be further from the truth. Ukip are the embodiment of corporate interests and they really don’t care about cracking down on tax avoidance.

Are Ukip prepared to take on the powerful vested interests in the City? And are they prepared to consider supporting Green proposals on tackling the scourge of tax evasion including enforcement of existing tax legislation and increased transparency including a minimum rate for corporation tax.

Based on their behaviour so far in Europe, I wouldn’t hold my breath in waiting for them.

On these issues, my Green colleagues and I have been leading the way. And in response to the Luxleaks issue we have developed a proposal to take concrete action. We are calling for the establishment of a committee to carry out a robust inquiry into tax evasion and dumping, not just related to Juncker, but across the EU and beyond.

Sacking the entire Commission irrespective of each individuals’ involvement in the scandal may hit the headlines, but it would do nothing to tackle the deeper issue of tax avoidance which has plagued the EU for far too long.

Keith Taylor is the Green MEP for South East England

Getty
Show Hide image

Donald Trump ushers in a new era of kakistocracy: government by the worst people

Trump will lead the whitest, most male cabinet in memory – a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

“What fills me with doubt and dismay is the degradation of the moral tone,” wrote the American poet James Russell Lowell in 1876, in a letter to his fellow poet Joel Benton. “Is it or is it not a result of democracy? Is ours a ‘government of the people by the people for the people’, or a kakistocracy rather, for the benefit of knaves at the cost of fools?”

Is there a better, more apt description of the incoming Trump administration than “kakistocracy”, which translates from the Greek literally as government by the worst people? The new US president, as Barack Obama remarked on the campaign trail, is “uniquely unqualified” to be commander-in-chief. There is no historical analogy for a President Trump. He combines in a single person some of the worst qualities of some of the worst US presidents: the Donald makes Nixon look honest, Clinton look chaste, Bush look smart.

Trump began his tenure as president-elect in November by agreeing to pay out $25m to settle fraud claims brought against the now defunct Trump University by dozens of former students; he began the new year being deposed as part of his lawsuit against a celebrity chef. On 10 January, the Federal Election Commission sent the Trump campaign a 250-page letter outlining a series of potentially illegal campaign contributions. A day later, the head of the non-partisan US Office of Government Ethics slammed Trump’s plan to step back from running his businesses as “meaningless from a conflict-of-interest perspective”.

It cannot be repeated often enough: none of this is normal. There is no precedent for such behaviour, and while kakistocracy may be a term unfamiliar to most of us, this is what it looks like. Forget 1876: be prepared for four years of epic misgovernance and brazen corruption. Despite claiming in his convention speech, “I alone can fix it,” the former reality TV star won’t be governing on his own. He will be in charge of the richest, whitest, most male cabinet in living memory; a bizarre melange of the unqualified and the unhinged.

There has been much discussion about the lack of experience of many of Trump’s appointees (think of the incoming secretary of state, Rex Tillerson, who has no background in diplomacy or foreign affairs) and their alleged bigotry (the Alabama senator Jeff Sessions, denied a role as a federal judge in the 1980s following claims of racial discrimination, is on course to be confirmed as attorney general). Yet what should equally worry the average American is that Trump has picked people who, in the words of the historian Meg Jacobs, “are downright hostile to the mission of the agency they are appointed to run”. With their new Republican president’s blessing, they want to roll back support for the poorest, most vulnerable members of society and don’t give a damn how much damage they do in the process.

Take Scott Pruitt, the Oklahoma attorney general selected to head the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). Pruitt describes himself on his LinkedIn page as “a leading advocate against the EPA’s activist agenda” and has claimed that the debate over climate change is “far from settled”.

The former neurosurgeon Ben Carson is Trump’s pick for housing and urban development, a department with a $49bn budget that helps low-income families own homes and pay the rent. Carson has no background in housing policy, is an anti-welfare ideologue and ruled himself out of a cabinet job shortly after the election. “Dr Carson feels he has no government experience,” his spokesman said at the time. “He’s never run a federal agency. The last thing he would want to do was take a position that could cripple the presidency.”

The fast-food mogul Andrew Puzder, who was tapped to run the department of labour, doesn’t like . . . well . . . labour. He prefers robots, telling Business Insider in March 2016: “They’re always polite . . . They never take a vacation, they never show up late, there’s never a slip-and-fall, or an age, sex or race discrimination case.”

The billionaire Republican donor Betsy DeVos, nominated to run the department of education, did not attend state school and neither did any of her four children. She has never been a teacher, has no background in education and is a champion of school vouchers and privatisation. To quote the education historian Diane Ravitch: “If confirmed, DeVos will be the first education secretary who is actively hostile to public education.”

The former Texas governor Rick Perry, nominated for the role of energy secretary by Trump, promised to abolish the department that he has been asked to run while trying to secure his party’s presidential nomination in 2011. Compare and contrast Perry, who has an undergraduate degree in animal science but failed a chemistry course in college, with his two predecessors under President Obama: Dr Ernest Moniz, the former head of MIT’s physics department, and Dr Steven Chu, a Nobel Prize-winning physicist from Berkeley. In many ways, Perry, who spent the latter half of 2016 as a contestant on Dancing with the Stars, is the ultimate kakistocratic appointment.

“Do Trump’s cabinet picks want to run the government – or dismantle it?” asked a headline in the Chicago Tribune in December. That’s one rather polite way of putting it. Another would be to note, as the Online Etymology Dictionary does, that kakistocracy comes from kakistos, the Greek word for “worst”, which is a superlative of kakos, or “bad”, which “is related to the general Indo-European word for ‘defecate’”.

Mehdi Hasan has rejoined the New Statesman as a contributing editor and will write a fortnightly column on US politics

Mehdi Hasan is a contributing writer for the New Statesman and the co-author of Ed: The Milibands and the Making of a Labour Leader. He was the New Statesman's senior editor (politics) from 2009-12.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era