Nigel Farage, leader of UKIP speaking at an election meeting
On his first day back in Brussels, UKIP Leader Nigel Farage takes some time out from organising the new IND/DEM Group to talk to New Europe’s Andy Carling
You’ve come back with more members, against predictions and ahead of Labour. You’re looking more unified than five years ago, so what are the reasons for this success?
I think two things, firstly the nightmarish divisions we suffered from, I mean literally as we arrived here in 2004 I knew the whole thing was just going to blow apart. You just couldn’t have Robert Kilroy-Silk in a political party with other human beings and that led us into a horrible period.
But we’ve had a clear out of the party at home, we’ve sent out messages thatUKIP is not a party that is anti-Europe and that some of that ‘angry old man’ tendency, that was fractious by nature, has disappeared. So the first reason is that we’re more unified. Look at our candidates; we’re a different party, we’ve got black and Asian candidates so we’ve got a cross section of society rather than the more narrower base of five years ago.
Secondly, public opinion has moved in our direction and I think the lack of a referendum in the UK is part of that. I do think we’d have done even better in the elections if there had been a proper European debate. The difficulty for us was that the expenses row clouded everything.
I remember your first press conference in 2004 when Kilroy-Silk said you were here to smash the place up. I remember the look of despondency on your face when he said that.
It was incredible, everybody who saw it told me that they could see my face drop. I just thought “Oh my God”.
I think that harmed you. You do represent many people but Kilroy-Silk’s eruption put people’s backs up. Many people, including think tanks etc, just didn’t know how to handle the sceptics and they seemed to try to ignore you and hope you went away. Do you intend reaching out to people like that and get involved with the policy dialogues in Brussels?
We’ve got a lot of decisions to make. Our number one priority will always be to get rid of ourselves and leave the EU. However, engagement here is a very good way of engaging back home and the best example I can give right now is that of Marta Andreasson, former Chief Accountant for the European Commission and she is going to serve on the Budget Control Committee and I really pushed for her, so I think whatUKIP does in that committee will be looked at by everybody in Brussels and back in Britain, so there will be areas like that where we will engage.
We do have Stuart Agnew, a Norfolk farmer and representative of the National Farmers Union and he may be involved in the Agricultural Committee, so you may see a bit more activity outside the plenary than you’ve seen before and the object of all that is to widen out a greater public debate on how the EU institutions dominate our lives.
The corridors of power
Would you see yourselves taking on a more ‘watchdog’ role?
Yes. In the past that was an aspiration but to a certain extent it wasn’t fulfilled, but the more we can flag, the better and another area I can mention is the threat to the City of London, which is huge. Three vast regulatory bodies are about to be established to cover banking, insurance and equities and goodness knows what the implications are for Britain’s biggest business.
You’re here trying to form your parliamentary group. I notice the UK Conservatives are looking for a new home, are any of them looking coyly in your direction?
I don’t think any of Cameron’s lot are going to join my group, but if any of them, as sinners who repenteth, decide they’d like to sit with us, we’d be happy to talk to them. Look, it’s not going to happen, the Tories say they will form a group. I wish them luck with that but I don’t think they’re going to succeed.
It does seem like a strange decision for Cameron to leave the EPP just as it’s had its greatest success.
I would say it’s consistent with Cameron’s inconsistency on Europe. It’s all conflicting symbols but the test for him, the one that matters is not what group he sits with, but what does he do if Lisbon is ratified by the Irish. What then is his policy towards a referendum?
Libertas have had quite a monumental failure. This must have weakened Ganley’s anti-Lisbon ambitions.
I think it was a big mistake. I remember a meeting in the House of Commons when he unveiled his grand design and Stuart Wheeler said “If this fails, you will greatly damage your prospects in the second referendum campaign” and Ganley said yesterday he will take no part in a second referendum campaign.
What would you do if the Irish vote Yes?
I would be disappointed. I would be outraged that their first vote wasn’t accepted. But in reality, ratification will concentrate minds more on the ultimate question; Why should nation states want to be part of this? There won’t be any more treaties after this, there won’t be any more referendums because this treaty makes all of that ‘unnecessary’.
So I think it will lead to a bigger debate on the European question and I take the view that it isn’t reformable. The only way we can have a better European co-operation is to divorce ourselves from the current structure and start again with a blank sheet of paper and base it on trade. I will not give up. I accept that Declan Ganley is damaged goods and has left the battlefield and that is a problem for the No campaign, but we haven’t given up yet.
The eurosceptic choices were widespread in the election, from yourselves to left/union parties to the British National Party. I’ve noticed a whispering campaign to link you to theBNP. For example, when the BNP membership list was published, there were rumours that many UKIP were on it.
Two. One of whom was a vicar who was a member of the Green party as well. If ever there was conclusive proof that there isn’t a link, that membership list was the proof of that. We are entirely different people. The difficulty is that theBNP try to ape us in everything they do. They try to use the same emblems, the same language.
A lot of politics is about public perception. You’re going to have to find a way of differentiating yourselves from the BNP.
I don’t think many people think we’re the same at all. It’s a question I get asked sometimes, but in the main, I don’t think people do link us with them and a quick glance at our literature, our platform shows the difference.
I’ve heard the ‘they’re just the same’ line, mainly from people who are pro-Europe.
It’s the classic smear. They’ve been doing it for years and you know what? They’re not succeeding. They were doing this when I got elected in 1979. I can’t stop people saying it, but I don’t think people are believing it.
If you’re getting more engaged with committees and getting more active I don’t think the BNP can do that.
We’ve also got a track record. I think we’re respected. We’re not liked, but I think we’re respected and we have a consistent voice.
You’re beginning to form your own group. how difficult is that?
Difficult. Parties in government have done very well in these elections by stifling debate on the Europe question so we have lost some people and I’ve got some work to do, but I’m going to do it. I don’t want to sit with the non-attached, I don’t want to sit withLe Pen, Griffin and all those people. I think we’ve got a bigger contribution to make, right across the union.
What are your goals for this parliament?
Short term, we’re going to fight this second Irish referendum and we’ll do whatever we legally can to fight it. Secondly, we’ll continue to provide a voice of opposition in this parliament and represent the people who voted for us. Thirdly, we will do whatever we can, back in our member state countries to keep this whole debate alive because the political parties don’t want to have it and we’re going to make sure they damn well have to.
I don’t know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody.