Nigel Farage. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

We can't just give Nigel Farage the silent treatment

Nigel Farage's attacks on the vulnerable - the unemployed, immigrants, and in this case, people with AIDS and HIV musn't go unchallenged.

Perhaps understandably, George Osborne said that he would not dignify Farage’s commitment to be “tough on Aids victims” with a response. Granted, Osborne is not a confrontational figure – he’s hardly the Noel Gallagher of Westminster - and, anyway, plenty of other politicians took the opportunity to tell the sweat-drenched UKIP leader that he should be ashamed of himself, so what’s the problem?

The issue is that by not engaging in debate with Farage when he says ugly things, we fail to spot when he attempts to deliberately deceive us. In last week’s debate, Farage distorted the figures. Let’s look at exactly what the Ukip leader said about the people he terms “health tourists”:

There are 7,000 diagnoses in this country every year for people who are HIV positive.

But 60% of them are not British nationals, you can come into Britain from anywhere in the world and get diagnosed with HIV and get the retro viral drugs that cost up to £25,000 per year per patient."

Here Farage paints a picture of legions of dastardly HIV-positive foreigners logging onto to EasyJet and booking budget flights to Stansted, before holding out their greedy hands for 25K worth of the British taxpayers’ cash and probably stuffing their faces with our cod and chips, too.

The reality is much diffrent. According to the most recent figures available online, of the 62,540 who received HIV treatment in the UK in 2010, only 250 of them were short term residents. Of those only 180 actually received antiretroviral therapy. To put things in perspective then, only 0.28% of those who got the drugs Farage is so keen to keep for himself had lived in the UK for less than two years. The rest were UK nationals or people who had lived here for many years.

How Farage can call any of these people ‘tourists’ is beyond reproachable, but even financially, Farage’s tough on AIDs policy does not make sense. First consider the cost of testing every person on the border for every single disease that Farage deems a deal breaker, then perhaps treating a couple of hundred short term UK residents will not seem so bad.

Unfortunately, Farage’s unprecedented popularity means that we all need to dignify him with a response, especially when he bullies and scapegoats the least fortunate in our society.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour will soon be forced to make clear its stance on Brexit

The Great Repeal Bill will force the party to make a choice on who has the final say on a deal withg Europe.

A Party Manifesto has many functions. But rarely is it called upon to paper over the cracks between a party and its supporters. But Labour’s was – between its Eurosceptic leadership and its pro-EU support base. Bad news for those who prefer their political parties to face at any given moment in only one direction. But a forthcoming parliamentary vote will force the party to make its position clear.

The piece of legislation that makes us members of the EU is the European Communities Act 1972. “Very soon” – says the House of Commons Library – we will see a Repeal Bill that will, according to the Queen’s Speech, “repeal the European Communities Act.” It will be repealed, says the White Paper for the Repeal Bill, “on the day we leave the EU.”

It will contain a clause stating that the bit of the bill that repeals the European Communities Act will come into force on a date of the Prime Minister's choosing. But MPs will have to choose whether to vote for that clause. And this is where Labour’s dilemma comes into play.

In her Lancaster House speech Theresa May said:

“I can confirm today that the Government will put the final deal that is agreed between the UK and the EU to a vote in both Houses of Parliament, before it comes into force.”

Later that day David Davis clarified May’s position, saying, of a vote against the final deal:

“The referendum last year set in motion a circumstance where the UK is going to leave the European Union, and it won’t change that.” 

So. The choice the Tories will give to Parliament is between accepting whatever deal is negotiated or leaving without a deal. Not a meaningful choice at all given that (as even Hammond now accepts): “No deal would be a very, very bad outcome for Britain.”

But what about Labour’s position? Labour’s Manifesto says:

“Labour recognises that leaving the EU with ‘no deal’ is the worst possible deal for Britain and that it would do damage to our economy and trade. We will reject ‘no deal’ as a viable option.”

So, it has taken that option off the table. But it also says:

“A Labour approach to Brexit also means legislating to guarantee that Parliament has a truly meaningful vote on the final Brexit deal (my emphasis).”

Most Brexit commentators would read that phrase – a meaningful vote – as drawing an implicit contrast with the meaningless vote offered by Theresa May at Lancaster House. They read it, in other words, as a vote between accepting the final deal or remaining in the EU.

But even were they wrong, the consequence of Labour taking “no deal” off the table is that there are only two options: leaving on the terms of the deal or remaining. Labour’s Manifesto explicitly guarantees that choice to Parliament. And guarantees it at a time when the final deal is known.

But here’s the thing. If Parliament chooses to allow Theresa May to repeal the European Communities Act when she wants, Parliament is depriving itself of a choice when the result of the deal is known. It is depriving itself of the vote Labour’s Manifesto promises. And not only that - by handing over to the Prime Minister the decision whether to repeal the European Communities Act, Parliament is voluntarily depriving itself of the power to supervise the Brexit negotiations. Theresa May will be able to repeat the Act whatever the outcome of those negotiations. She won’t be accountable to Parliament for the result of her negotiations – and so Parliament will have deprived itself of the ability to control them. A weakened Prime Minister, without a mandate, will have taken back control. But our elected Parliament will not.

If Labour wants to make good on its manifesto promise, if Labour wants to control the shape of Brexit, it must vote against that provision of the Repeal Bill.

That doesn’t put Labour in the position of ignoring the referendum vote. There will be ample time, from October next year when the final deal is known, for Labour to look at the Final Deal and have a meaningful vote on it.

But if Labour supports the Repeal Bill it will be breaching a clear manifesto promise.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister who advised Ed Miliband on tax policy. He blogs at Waiting for Tax, and writes for the NS on tax and legal issues. 

0800 7318496