A fortnight should be sufficient time to allow dust from the European elections to settle in the UK. What has not settled in that time are the nerves of pro-European, liberal-minded and informed individuals. Whatever the political allegiances of the members of those groups, the results of the local and European elections, when realised on May 24th and 27th 2014, were greeted with shock, dismay and disbelief. For many, there was also more than a little fear: a common refrain was "how did that happen"?
The answer seems fairly simple. The swing to the right happened because too few people stood up to challenge the deliberate untruths put forward by the successful UKIP campaign. Nigel Farage cleverly and carefully cultivated the image of: the 'man down the pub'; 'one of the boys'; 'Brit to the core', all images designed to appeal to a public disenchanted by Westminster politics and unsure and distrustful of a Europe that it feared had generated economic and social turmoil. The reality of Farage the man is, of course, more complex. Put succinctly, during the course of the campaign Mr. Farage showed himself to be a bully, a hypocrite, a scaremonger, a man armed with 'facts' (designed to appeal to people not treated to any other evidence about EU life) and a facade that could - and sometimes did - slip, revealing the unpleasantness within. These attributes were largely unchallenged and when they were, somehow his ratings only improved. His strategy has revealed him to be a true politician and it has been distressingly successful. Even as UKIP has seemed destined to implode, with story after embarrassing story emerging via twitter or radio appearance, the UKIP polls simply soared higher.
Take for example, the respective performances of Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage in the two televised 'Europe' debates (26th March, 2014 and 2nd April, 2014) prior to the elections. One participant appeared to have turned up expecting a debate at the Oxford Union, the other expecting a cage fight without the luxury of a referee. Whereas Nick Clegg allowed his opponent (particularly in the first debate) the opportunity to speak uninterrupted, Nigel Farage displayed no such courtesy, talking over his opponent with impunity and loudly making unfounded assertions. Whilst this clearly shows that Clegg needs to grow a political backbone, it is also symptomatic of the UKIP approach to political debate and opposition: shout louder and hope that no one can hear or believe what the other guy is saying. Thus far, it is a ploy that appears to bear fruit. Whilst sinking to the same level is highly undesirable, it would be interesting to see how the electorate would react, should the 'opposition' seek to drown out UKIP whilst spouting positive, factual and pertinent information about the EU and the realities of engagement with it.
UKIP's performance in the elections, both local and supranational, bodes ill for Britain. Returning or promoting UKIP members to the European Parliament will only leave British interests unrepresented and exposed in key policy areas and her reputation tarnished. Those same UKIP MEPs will, no doubt once again avail themselves of every allowance open to them, stocking war-chests for future activities. Meanwhile, pro-European parties and candidates will doubtless tone down any statements they make supporting Europe - or become altogether mute - for fear that they will increase their unpopularity… there is an election in 11 months, after all.
This passes the obligation to debate and engage in European issues on to those of us who are informed, opposed to rabble-rousing and committed to participatory democracy. I am by no means impartial. As a largely pro-European (by which I mean in favour of the project, without agreeing with all policy developments and legislation) academic, I am by nature biased towards a positive result that will ensure Britain's ongoing participation at the core of the Union. I oppose both UKIP's entire manifesto and calls for another referendum on membership. Also, I am a northerner. For broader European interests, this may seem irrelevant: it is not. My region's MEPs include UKIP members, a local MP, Simon Danczuk (Labour, Salford) claims that London politics fails to engage with either me or my region and UKIP did frighteningly well in the local elections across the region. All these factors concern me directly; they should be of concern to others, too. UKIP MEPs clearly by no means represent my views, but I do engage with and frown upon Westminster politics in equal measure (as do many others) and I love living in a vibrant and cosmopolitan community. We are all at greatest risk of becoming disenfranchised if the mainstream parties and local politicians allow UKIP's agenda to dominate their thinking and fail to develop policies that address local and national measures alike.
More than that, however, the local and regional elections reveal much more important things to us all. We the electorate – academics, environmentalists, women, business owners, drivers, cyclists, children, workers, fishermen – all have an obligation to inform ourselves and others about the truths of European life. From means of direct access to the institutions, to how laws are made and how Citizens' Initiatives work, we are part of an enormous political machine that is eager to engage with us on an individual as well as collective level. Farage's campaign contained misinformation, specifically concerning immigration and border control, that needs to be counteracted.
The Union undoubtedly has problems: it cannot possibly please everyone all of the time. Anyone with a family knows how hard it can be to get groups of people to agree: the Union is a family of more than 500 million - it's a difficult task to manage. However, the Union has secured tremendous advances across a range of areas. Free movement, seemingly the chief issue of concern and disagreement, is, according to UKIP an unmanageable and disruptive force that leads to crime, localised unemployment and economic depression. Not everyone agrees with this perspective. But where is the discussion of the benefits of migration – and, for that matter, emigration, the flip side of the free movement coin? Increased cultural diversity, skill set sharing?Integration? Poverty reduction? Cultural exchange? Stimulus in new areas of the economy?
Where is the discussion of the environmental changes and improvements in working conditions? The reduction in car tax for environmentally friendlier vehicles? Equality in insurance premiums (a change I like less than I, perhaps, should)? Student rights? These are merely a few of the benefits of EU membership for individuals. If we know of them, we have a duty to share them with others, as they have an immediate and individual impact. Why are these surely popular changes so little discussed?
I urge you to spread this information far and wide. It is not that I think the wider electorate cannot be trusted to vote sensibly. But when the diet of information is so unrelentingly biased and negative, it is difficult for positive news to gain airtime.
However, our duty arises for a secondary, arguably more important, reason. The rhetoric being used in campaigns not only of UKIP, but increasing numbers of parties across Europe, has become frighteningly extreme. Speaking on a live national broadcast on June 7th 2014, awaiting the result of the Newark by-election, Nigel Farage again referred to UKIP and its voters as the "people's army", making the claim that it would continue to "march" forward. This image offers a disturbing insight into UKIP's internal identity, aspirations and inspiration. The term has been variously used in Czechoslovakia, East Germany, Yugoslavia, Poland, Vietnam and North Korea: hardly salubrious company, all leaning to a political extreme. Couple this with the shift in terminology being used by the Golden Dawn party in Greece and the success of right-wing parties in the EU elections and the indications are that Europe faces an uncertain future.
Unfortunately, fascism - extremism of any kind - never calls ahead to announce itself. It creeps insidiously upon us, often preceded by an economic downturn and dissatisfaction with staid politicians who appear removed from those who most need assistance. The key ingredients seem to be present to allow fascism to take a foothold across the continent. Parties appealing to the electorate to 'remember their roots', making promises to protect national interests are a harrowing echo of europe eighty years ago. It is encouraging that individuals have responded humorously negatively to UKIP's agenda and style of campaigning, but the worry is that the UKIP message appears to have struck a chord across the political spectrum. If we believe Edmund Burke was right in saying that "those who don't know history are doomed to repeat it", we might also feel positive about the future. The D-Day 70th anniversary serves as a reminder of the struggle that engulfed Europe in the last century. We know how history played out: we are in a position to prevent a repeat.
The recent elections serve as a chilling reminder that democracy requires participation of the greatest number: however, it should also be evident that our own safety is safeguarded only if we make informed decisions. Participatory democracy, making informed decisions, has never been more important. Learn, inform, discuss. Or, even knowing history, we may be doomed to repeat it.
Food for thought.
Julia Bradshaw
