Wednesday 26th March: Clegg v Farage TV Debate (Round One)

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/news/sky-news-show-clegg-v-farage-european-debates-65926/

EU: In or Out? Nick Clegg v Nigel Farage


http://tvnewsroom.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Sky-News-Murnaghan-03-23-11-29-39-600x339.jpg


Sky News has confirmed it will broadcast live coverage of LBC’s ‘Clegg vs Farage In Or Out Of The EU?’ debate on Wednesday 26th March.

Kay Burley will present live coverage before and after the debate, where Liberal Democrats leader, Nick Clegg, goes head-to-head at 7pm with UKIP’s leader, Nigel Farage, over Britain’s future in Europe.

Kay will present live from the debate’s central London location with Political Editor Adam Boulton and a panel of guests in Sky News’ Westminster studio. Analysis will be provided from Deputy Political Editor, Joey Jones.

Sky News will also carry the BBC’s debate between the two leaders the following week on Wednesday 2nd April.

John Ryley, Head of Sky News, said: “Sky News believes strongly that leaders’ debates should be seen by the widest possible audience. We commend LBC and the BBC for making their debates freely available to all other broadcasters.”



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GCsKqQ4wRHc

A few places you'll be able to watch it seems, either on the LBC website or Youtube (see above) or on Sky News.

Looking forward to it. There's going to be another in early April on BBC One or Two aswell.

[lemons]

fight fight fight fight fight

[GommeInc]

I just want to watch Clegg squirm. I would be very amazed he manages to argue any points against such an argumentative man such as Farage. Plus Clegg deserves no sympathy and having him be belittled by Farage is as close as the British public who voted for the Lib Dems will get to seeing him beaten up for wasting their votes.

[Ardemax]

I feel bad for Clegg. It's just like the Tories have pushed a small child in front of an oncoming train.

[GommeInc]

I feel bad for Clegg. It's just like the Tories have pushed a small child in front of an oncoming train.
Except the child wants to see if he can take on a train :P

[Chippiewill]

People shouldn't count Clegg out, he did extremely well in the Prime Minister debates during the last General Election. And as much as Dan likes to make everyone here think otherwise there are actually two sides to the argument. Although I'm sure he'll post some pro-UKIP blog declaring Farage the winner I suspect it'll actually be pretty evenly divided, which is good actually because getting the facts out into the open is great for everyone.

[Inseriousity.]

Is there a focus for each debate or is it just the same debate twice? If it's the latter I'll probably just wait for the BBC debate. Should be interesting anyway.

[dbgtz]

People shouldn't count Clegg out, he did extremely well in the Prime Minister debates during the last General Election. And as much as Dan likes to make everyone here think otherwise there are actually two sides to the argument. Although I'm sure he'll post some pro-UKIP blog declaring Farage the winner I suspect it'll actually be pretty evenly divided, which is good actually because getting the facts out into the open is great for everyone.

Clegg is clearly trying to replicate that in order to gain support next year considering he still needs to make up for all the people he pissed off in 2010/2011 (despite the fact the Lib Dems didn't win the election which some people fail to realise).

[Chippiewill]

Clegg is clearly trying to replicate that in order to gain support next year considering he still needs to make up for all the people he pissed off in 2010/2011 (despite the fact the Lib Dems didn't win the election which some people fail to realise).

NEWS ALERT - PARTY LEADER IS TRYING TO mattGARNER SUPPORT IN A WAY THAT WAS REALLY SUCCESSFUL LAST TIME THEY DID IT!

[GommeInc]

People shouldn't count Clegg out, he did extremely well in the Prime Minister debates during the last General Election. And as much as Dan likes to make everyone here think otherwise there are actually two sides to the argument. Although I'm sure he'll post some pro-UKIP blog declaring Farage the winner I suspect it'll actually be pretty evenly divided, which is good actually because getting the facts out into the open is great for everyone.
Indeed he was good at those debates, but everyone now knows that what he does is spout rubbish and doesn't stand by his convictions - he hasn't stood by any of his policies from those debates. Not forgetting he was probably given a speech to read. Those debates were so constructed it was painful to watch - no ad libbing was seen and the debate seemed to be "Here is my point. I disagree with this" and then move onto the next point followed by the odd "I agree with Nick". No one will or should take him seriously.

As far as the general public see him, he's a written off politician that should just give up. Also the Liberal Democrats are the worst party to have post the facts as they're not really a real party anyway and change their policies far too often - they're a glorified think tank that sits in between Labour and the Conservatives. From reading their manifesto they do not need seem to support their claims over why being in the EU is beneficial. At least UKIP can conjure up something. They probably think stating no information over the EU is justified on the grounds that we're currently part of it and it is up for the other side to prove why the EU is a bad thing.

Furthermore, the Liberal Democrats have even stated that if they were to win they would consider clawing back more powers from Brussels and/or re-thinking our relationship with the EU, while Labour have said they have no future intentions unless more power is asked from Brussels. As far as differences go, the Lib Dems are even reconsidering our relationship with the EU - more so than Labour. Therefore the debates should be between Labour and UKIP, not some jumped up failed politician who talks the talk but cannot walk the walk whose party is even thinking the EU may not be as good as it should be. They're not that different to UKIP or the Conservatives as far as stance goes. A polar opposite would be Labour.

[dbgtz]

NEWS ALERT - PARTY LEADER IS TRYING TO mattGARNER SUPPORT IN A WAY THAT WAS REALLY SUCCESSFUL LAST TIME THEY DID IT!

My point was the only reason he's doing it is the only reason he's doing it is for his own agenda whereas Farage has personalised the issue. This is Clegg riding the train so expect him to be crap hence "trying".

I would hardly say it was really successful last time. Maybe successful for some Lib Dem cabinet members bank accounts.

[The Don]

My point was the only reason he's doing it is the only reason he's doing it is for his own agenda whereas Farage has personalised the issue. This is Clegg riding the train so expect him to be crap hence "trying".

I would hardly say it was really successful last time. Maybe successful for some Lib Dem cabinet members bank accounts.

How has Farage personalised the issue when his entire political agenda is to get out of the EU? They are both doing the debate for political gain, nothing more.

[GommeInc]

I would hardly say it was really successful last time. Maybe successful for some Lib Dem cabinet members bank accounts.
At the very least some spin doctor who managed to get someone to literally try selling manure to horses - before that someone realised he cannot stick by those promises and then a few years later appear on TV apologising (http://www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2012/09/20/watch-nick-clegg-s-tuition-fees-apology) for being a failure, and then be remixed into a music video using auto-tune (https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CDQQtwIwAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DKUD jRZ30SNo&ei=aK8xU-3-Bse4hAedxICACw&usg=AFQjCNGkA817zftDEXKdjN1Z2eG3It_9mA&sig2=JS0k2lROyGslB_AYVWDOWQ&bvm=bv.63587204,d.ZG4) :P


How has Farage personalised the issue when his entire political agenda is to get out of the EU? They are both doing the debate for political gain, nothing more.
It's a policy his party supports and is a policy that is of concern to the general public. Clegg is just doing it because he's a failed politician trying to claw back some respect. His party is completely split over the matter and shortly after the debates were announced his party even said that they would considered renegotiating the relationship the UK has with the EU. It seems to be just Clegg arguing for continued Union, his party is rather quiet over the matter if not completely oblivious to it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

People shouldn't count Clegg out, he did extremely well in the Prime Minister debates during the last General Election. And as much as Dan likes to make everyone here think otherwise there are actually two sides to the argument. Although I'm sure he'll post some pro-UKIP blog declaring Farage the winner I suspect it'll actually be pretty evenly divided, which is good actually because getting the facts out into the open is great for everyone.

Uh well no actually, you are wrong there. I only posted this thread to let people know the debate was on tommorow - I don't think i've given an opinion on who I think will win although naturally I will probably think Farage has won unless he really messes up and puts his foot in it.

I actually think both will come away as winners in the debate in terms of performance: Clegg is clearly trying to position himself and his party as the party of being in (which will appeal to pro-EU members of the public) and Farage the opposite. That's why I think Clegg proposed the debate in the first place.

In terms of the debate itself rather than performance, as somebody who wants out: i'll come away thinking Farage has crushed Clegg in terms of whether or not the European Union is good for Britain or not.

In terms of party politics, all Farage has to do is walk in there and hold this up and he's won it if you ask me -


http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/Clegg-referendum-page-001-353x500.jpg

Peformance, both will probably win.

Actual debate, I can't see Farage losing the argument to Clegg on EU good or bad.

[Sian]

I'm actually looking forward to this, it's about time someone gave Clegg a proper running through, I'm not a fan of Farage at all, but he will definitely make a good go at collapsing Clegg.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.ezimba.com/work/140327C/ezimba16083433466800.png

http://order-order.com/


Has Nick Clegg been using civil service resources for party political preparation for tonight’s debate against Nigel Farage? He is not appearing at the LBC Debate in his capacity as Deputy Prime Minister rather, as a LibDem spokesman told Guido this morning: “Tonight is the leaders’ debate so Nick is appearing as the Leader of of the Liberal Democrat Party”. It’s a very political event…

As Deputy Prime Minister Clegg is allowed to request factual briefings on government policy whenever he likes, yet sources familiar with the situation have indicated to Guido that they believe he has strayed beyond this and into party political territory. “He’s asking for all sorts of things, beyond government policy on Europe”, one told Guido this morning. It is believed by some that the briefings have been prepared to back up attack lines on UKIP – a big no, no for civil servants.

Nick Clegg’s spokesman denies that they have done anything wrong, but did confirm that civil servants have briefed the DPM for this specific political event:


“Nick Clegg is Deputy Prime Minister as well as Leader of the Liberal Democrats. He is regularly briefed on all aspects of Government policy, including Europe, before public appearances, such as DPMQs or Call Clegg on LBC. It is very likely that during the debates he be asked about Coalition Government policies and the relationship between the British Government, of which he is Deputy Prime Minister, and the European Union. To that end, he has been given factual briefings and facts and figures on Coalition Government policy and how the EU works in relation to Britain. But the briefings for the debates are being done by political advisers and HQ staff.”

Guido has requested a copy of all the debate preparation from the Cabinet Office under the Freedom of Information Act.

It is worth noting that the ‘General Principle’ of the Ministerial Code states:


“Facilities provided to Ministers at Government expense to enable them to carry out their official duties should not be used for Party or constituency work.”

Point 6.3 makes things a little clearer:


“Official facilities and resources may not be used for the dissemination of material which is essentially party political.”

Should it emerge that Clegg used civil servant briefings on issues beyond government policy on Europe to prepare for tonight’s debate then Guido cannot see how he has not fallen foul of this point.

And now Labour are making enquiries too...

Labour Complain to Cabinet Office Over Clegg ‘Stitch Up’


http://orderorder.files.wordpress.com/2014/03/clegg.png?w=480&h=286


Nick Clegg’s use of civil service resources to prep for tonight’s debate with Nigel Farage is escalating into a full blown row, with Labour writing to the Cabinet Office permanent secretary to demand answers:


Dear Mr Heaton,

I am writing in response to allegations that the Deputy Prime Minister may have been assisted in his preparations for ‘The LBC Leaders’ Debate’ tonight, in which he is participating in his capacity as Leader of the Liberal Democrats.

As you will know, this debate is a purely party political matter being contested between two Party Leaders in advance of European elections on May 22nd. Indeed, Mr Clegg makes clear that he is participating on behalf of his party in his article in the Daily Mirror today when he says, “Liberal Democrats want Britain to stay in the EU because we are fighting for Britain”.

A Liberal Democrat spokesman has told the website Guido Fawkes:

“[Mr Clegg] has been given factual briefings and facts and figures on Coalition Government policy and how the EU works in relation to Britain.”

If it is the case that work has been commissioned by Nick Clegg or his office from civil servants for the purposes of preparation for ‘The LBC Leaders’ Debate’, Mr Clegg may be in breach of the Ministerial Code, which states:

6.1 Facilities provided to Ministers at Government expense to enable them to carry out their official duties should not be used for Party or constituency work.

6.3 Official facilities and resources may not be used for the dissemination of material which is essentially party political.

In light of this, it is a matter of urgency that we are given reassurances that all rules have been followed and so I would be grateful if you would answer the following questions:

- What information has been requested by Nick Clegg or members of his staff from civil servants regarding how the EU works in relation to Britain over the last month, and have these requests increased compared to previous months?

- How many civil servants and from what Departments have provided written or verbal briefing to Mr Clegg regarding how the EU works in relation to Britain over the last month and for what purposes?

- How many meetings with civil servants has Mr Clegg had in the last month regarding how the EU works in relation to Britain, from which Departments and for what purposes?

- How many civil servants, from what Departments and over what duration have knowingly provided support for Mr Clegg in preparation for tonight’s ‘The LBC Leaders’ Debate’?

It would be deeply serious if the Leader of the Liberal Democrats were found to have used his senior government position to benefit from taxpayer-funded resources in advance of a political debate to further his electioneering interests.

Yours sincerely,

Sheila Gilmore MP

A UKIP spokesperson tells Guido this is an “establishment stitch up”. We could get to the truth if someone were to ask Clegg what happened this evening…

O-oh Clegg.

[Kardan]

I agree that Clegg did very well in the leader debates a few years back, I just don't think he's going to convince many people against UKIP's main policy.

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2KIKQwbZ3E

Godfrey Bloom MEP was on LBC earlier talking about a previous debate he had with Clegg at a university a few years back.

Interesting take.

[The Don]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P2KIKQwbZ3E

Godfrey Bloom MEP was on LBC earlier talking about a previous debate he had with Clegg at a university a few years back.

Interesting take.

8 views, how exactly have you found that?

[GommeInc]

<schnip>
Godfrey Bloom MEP was on LBC earlier talking about a previous debate he had with Clegg at a university a few years back.

Interesting take.
He was on BBC News 24 earlier discussing it too. What I find fascinating is that they both went to school together. Either Clegg is older than he looks or Bloom has aged terribly.

[The Don]

He was on BBC News 24 earlier discussing it too. What I find fascinating is that they both went to school together. Either Clegg is older than he looks or Bloom has aged terribly.

Just had to check and Clegg is 47 and Bloom is 64! Although Clegg definitely looks a lot younger than 47...

[-:Undertaker:-]

8 views, how exactly have you found that?

Sometimes YouTube takes a while to update view count. Although I think it just got put up an hour or so ago, read he'd been on LBC via Twitter feed/Guido so had a look if somebody had put it up yet. :P

And Clegg does look very young doesn't he. I always thought of him as 35 to 40ish. Nice cartoon in the Express btw -


http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/cartoon/900x614/2014-03-26.gif

[Chippiewill]

Sometimes YouTube takes a while to update view count.
Only past 300 views.

[The Don]

No idea who Nick Farage is haha, she was quick to correct that one.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Sky News Live coverage has begun now.... see ya all in two hour or so. :P

[Inseriousity.]

sky news livestream total crap lol cba

[lemons]

WOOHOO SO EXCITED

- - - Updated - - -

IT'S ON

[iBlueBox]

Just out of interest,

What's UKIPs policy / stand point on high education / tuition fees?

[dbgtz]

Cant help but feel Salmond will attack Nick Clegg for saying "Great Britain not little England".

Either way they both annoyed me a fair amount.

[Kardan]

I don't think Farage has done his chances of getting on the leaders debate any good (AKA, Cameron will probably be more afraid from having him on after that).

Pretty much as expected though, no? I did think Farage was a bit immature at laughing at some of the things that Clegg said, I wouldn't say that was professional, but I suppose that's the sort of guy he is :P

[The Don]

I don't think Farage has done his chances of getting on the leaders debate any good (AKA, Cameron will probably be more afraid from having him on after that).

Pretty much as expected though, no? I did think Farage was a bit immature at laughing at some of the things that Clegg said, I wouldn't say that was professional, but I suppose that's the sort of guy he is :P

I don't think it was one sided, Nick Clegg definitely held up his end even though Farage loved talking over him, especially when Clegg was actually listing the facts rather than baseless statements.

[Kardan]

I don't think it was one sided, Nick Clegg definitely held up his end even though Farage loved talking over him, especially when Clegg was actually listing the facts rather than baseless statements.

I wouldn't say it was one sided, just that Farage can definitely hold his ground in a debate, so Cameron wouldn't like that :P But I felt it was pretty predictable with them disagreeing about everything and them both having different figures for everything :P

[The Don]

I wouldn't say it was one sided, just that Farage can definitely hold his ground in a debate, so Cameron wouldn't like that :P But I felt it was pretty predictable with them disagreeing about everything and them both having different figures for everything :P

Yeh, but I guess at least Nick Clegg actually used legitimate facts and numbers whilst Farage was reluctant to explain how he came up with his, particularly on the 75% of legislation comes from brussels, he was quick to dodge the question when asked how he reached that number even though the house of commons disagreed.

[-:Undertaker:-]

In terms of performance, I think Farage did best at the start, Clegg in the middle and pretty much even at the end. That said, to me trying to be impartial and as a swing voter: Clegg certainly came across as more establishment and comforting which is what a lot of people flock to.

What really pissed me off and had me shouting at the screen was Clegg talking over Farage and continuously going on long rants about how the sky would fall in and we would all lose our jobs if we dared leave the EU. Whether my concern that Clegg overtalked Farage over and over again is true and not just my bias will be confirmed or not confirmed when we get the stats on how many minutes each of the men had.

In any case, both did good and it wasn't a complete car crash for Clegg as many would have perhaps expected.


Yeh, but I guess at least Nick Clegg actually used legitimate facts and numbers whilst Farage was reluctant to explain how he came up with his, particularly on the 75% of legislation comes from brussels, he was quick to dodge the question when asked how he reached that number even though the house of commons disagreed.

Farage explained where those figures came from. Indeed if my memory recalls correctly, he quoted three sources as saying that European legislation was over 50% of all laws in the UK. That's why he made the point that small business owners in the audience would know fully well as to what he was talking about.

The House of Commons library figure that Clegg quoted is false due to the fact that many EU laws and directives are passed as home laws so they may appear as UK law but are in fact mandated by the EU. I think the Human Rights Act is an example of this (although i'm sure Ryan will correct me if i'm wrong). It's also false due to the fact that the HoC library figures, to my knowledge, don't include local laws or devolved law making.

[The Don]

In terms of performance, I think Farage did best at the start, Clegg in the middle and pretty much even at the end. That said, to me trying to be impartial and as a swing voter: Clegg certainly came across as more establishment and comforting which is what a lot of people flock to.

What really pissed me off and had me shouting at the screen was Clegg talking over Farage and continuously going on long rants about how the sky would fall in and we would all lose our jobs if we dared leave the EU. Whether my concern that Clegg overtalked Farage over and over again is true and not just my bias will be confirmed or not confirmed when we get the stats on how many minutes each of the men had.

In any case, both did good and it wasn't a complete car crash for Clegg as many would have perhaps expected.



Farage explained where those figures came from. Indeed if my memory recalls correctly, he quoted three sources as saying that European legislation was over 50% of all laws in the UK. That's why he made the point that small business owners in the audience would know fully well as to what he was talking about.

I guess we're both suffering from confirmation bias since I thought Farage kept talking over Clegg, not the other way around :P

- - - Updated - - -

Definitely agree that Farage did better at the start and Clegg as it progressed. An extremely harsh first question though about giving people a referendum as Clegg couldn't really answer it.

[-:Undertaker:-]

First scientific poll out on the debate (weighted etc I presume to give accurate representation):

YouGov/The Sun with a normal sample size of 1,000+


https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BjrgvBqCYAAQ7Sy.png

I personally don't think it was that wide a gap.

My heart is pounding tonight haha, adrenaline rush. Debates are the sport of nerds. :P

[Kardan]

Do you think Farage would normally get a higher vote than you would expect because it was essentially his first big chance to shine? I sort of felt that happened a bit with Clegg in the 2010 debates.

I really hope Farage gets to be in the general election debates.

[The Don]

Does anyone else think Felicity Morse is coming across as a bit of an idiot? Definitely needs to think more before she opens her mouth.

And yeh, I hope Farage gets into the general election debates, would definitely be more exciting to watch.

[MKR&*42]

Do you know what Nick Clegg didn't do as shockingly as I expected him too, but yeah there were a lot of times where both of them interrupted each other (not exactly uncommon though :P) - good debate though.

[GommeInc]

Quite shocked Parliament and Clegg think only 7% of UK laws are from the EU. Even the EU states it's around the 75% mark and logically that makes sense seeing as the EU has a faster legislative process than us so we have a huge backlog. Anyone interested can begin by simply researching "dualist" processes and go from there - essentially we make law rather than agree to a Directive and have it incorporated as domestic law immediately.

Looking at the number of Bills currently going before Parliament quite a lot are coming from EU Directives and Regulations - far more than 7% :/ You have the Consumer Rights Directive which is currently the Consumer Rights Bill, Voting Eligibility Bill (technically ECHR work but the EU pushes it too), Wild Animals in Circuses Bill (based on half an EU Regulation and half a general movement although it's a bit pointless now) and the Deregulation Bill which is based on an EU Directive. The only unique ones at the moment are the Modern Slavery Bill (which is a first in Europe, so fingers up at them for being behind), Wales Bill (self-explanatory), National Insurance Contributions Bill (which is essentially getting everyone to contribute incl. migrants/immigrants) and the Draft Finances Bill 2014 which is based on the current changes in the budget.

If anything, for this year (2014) it's a nice 50/50 split, although some of it is delegated legislation so essentially building off either current EU based law or domestic law (Dangerous Dogs (Amendment) Bill being one).

[The Don]

Quite shocked Parliament and Clegg think only 7% of UK laws are from the EU. Even the EU states it's around the 75%

Could you link me to that please?

[-:Undertaker:-]

Could you link me to that please?

I gave the sources as did Farage in the debate. Ryan also just named legislation.

If you want a visual then simply watch this from 5:00 in -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAn2XiGg9oY#t=310

[The Don]

I gave the sources as did Farage in the debate. Ryan also just named legislation.

If you want a visual then simply watch this from 5:00 in -


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nAn2XiGg9oY#t=310

Could you directly link me to them as I don't recall seeing it. Thanks.

[GommeInc]

Could you link me to that please?
The Drafts or the statement? Some reporter said it on the BBC so no idea, and a few people tweeted it during the debates. I'd be interested to know too as some articles are stating 8-10% instead of 75% or even the low number of 7%, Besides, what is meant by implementation varies - we have a habit of not fully implementing regulations and directives. The UTCCR is one example I can think of so it's up for debate what implementation means in this context - something that was lacking in this debate :/

The Drafts/Bills can be found here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/draft-bills/

[The Don]

The Drafts or the statement? Some reporter said it on the BBC so no idea, and a few people tweeted it during the debates. I'd be interested to know too as some articles are stating 8-10% instead of 75% or even the low number of 7%, Besides, what is meant by implementation varies - we have a habit of not fully implementing regulations and directives. The UTCCR is one example I can think of so it's up for debate what implementation means in this context - something that was lacking in this debate :/

The Drafts/Bills can be found here:
http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/draft-bills/

The statement. So did the EU itself (a representative) say that 75% of laws and legislation come from it, like you said, or not? Because I'm tempted to listen to what parliament says, even more so since there's no backing for this 75% number people keep mentioning.

[GommeInc]

The statement. So did the EU itself (a representative) say that 75% of laws and legislation come from it, like you said, or not? Because I'm tempted to listen to what parliament says, even more so since there's no backing for this 75% number people keep mentioning.
I can't find it either. It seems strange Farage has mentioned it and so have a few media places as a solid fact (BBC stated it somewhere that the EU even thinks this). It wouldn't surprise me a lot of laws are influenced by EU/European law but are not necessarily directives - so the number may have been made up to suggest that some decisions were EU law even when they're not. It goes back to what implementation really means - we usually just add the good bits and ignore the bits which are not relevant to us.

[-:Undertaker:-]

The statement. So did the EU itself (a representative) say that 75% of laws and legislation come from it, like you said, or not? Because I'm tempted to listen to what parliament says, even more so since there's no backing for this 75% number people keep mentioning.

Again, the House of Commons library cannot be taken as truth due to the fact that as Ryan and myself have pointed out - a lot of EU legislation isn't direct and is adopted within domestic law, in local law and in devolved law. MPs from both sides put it at around the 50% figure (see video of Frank Field Labour MP), Viviane Reding the Vice EU Commissioner puts it at 70% odd from my recollection, the former German President conducted a study which put it at 85% odd from which Ukip have reduced the figure to 75% taking into account Euro legislation and so on and so forth. Apparently David Cameron himself has said in the past that "almost half" of regulation law comes from the EU - and that's huge when you take into account the extent of the Single Market and what it affects when passing legislation.

But whether it's 5%, 10%, 50% or 75% that's not even the point. The point is the supremacy of EU civil-styled law over our parliamentary sovereignty and the replacement of our precious common law. I have to say that one of the best moments in this debate tonight was how Farage defended English Liberty and Common Law which is something that you never hear anybody speak of these days. Reminded me very much of Ron Paul and rather fitting considering it's the 800th birthday of the Magna Carta next year.

[The Don]

I can't find it either. It seems strange Farage has mentioned it and so have a few media places as a solid fact (BBC stated it somewhere that the EU even thinks this). It wouldn't surprise me a lot of laws are influenced by EU/European law but are not necessarily directives - so the number may have been made up to suggest that some decisions were EU law even when they're not. It goes back to what implementation really means - we usually just add the good bits and ignore the bits which are not relevant to us.

Yeh, I guess so. I'm sure it's more than 7% but I really do not believe it's as high as 75%. I've just been reading a paper off Parliaments website and it calculates that about just under 15% come from the EU. Here's a link to it (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62/how-much-legislation-comes-from-europe) you'll have to open the pdf file. The numbers you'll want are on page 25 (21 officially by the numbers at the bottom of the page).

[GommeInc]

Yeh, I guess so. I'm sure it's more than 7% but I really do not believe it's as high as 75%. I've just been reading a paper off Parliaments website and it calculates that about just under 15% come from the EU. Here's a link to it (http://www.parliament.uk/briefing-papers/RP10-62/how-much-legislation-comes-from-europe) you'll have to open the pdf file. The numbers you'll want are on page 25 (21 officially by the numbers at the bottom of the page).
http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what-percentage-of-laws-come-from-the-eu/
That sort of explains it. It depends what you consider as EU law as there are different types and nothing concrete. Pure EU law is probably 7%, but different contributing sources definitely raise this.

[Chippiewill]

Viviane Reding the Vice EU Commissioner puts it at 70% odd from my recollection

It was a false figure https://fullfact.org/europe/eu_make_uk_laws_70_per_cent-29589

Edit: Full fact also mention elsewhere:
"Estimates reviewed by the House of Commons Library have put the proportion of UK law made in Brussels at between 7% and 50%, depending upon what we count as a law."

[The Don]

Again, the House of Commons library cannot be taken as truth due to the fact that as Ryan and myself have pointed out - a lot of EU legislation isn't direct and is adopted within domestic law, in local law and in devolved law. MPs from both sides put it at around the 50% figure (see video of Frank Field Labour MP), Viviane Reding the Vice EU Commissioner puts it at 70% odd from my recollection, the former German President conducted a study which put it at 85% odd from which Ukip have reduced the figure to 75% taking into account Euro legislation and so on and so forth. Apparently David Cameron himself has said in the past that "almost half" of regulation law comes from the EU - and that's huge when you take into account the extent of the Single Market and what it affects when passing legislation.

But whether it's 5%, 10%, 50% or 75% that's not even the point. The point is the supremacy of EU civil-styled law over our parliamentary sovereignty and the replacement of our precious common law. I have to say that one of the best moments in this debate tonight was how Farage defended English Liberty and Common Law which is something that you never hear anybody speak of these days. Reminded me very much of Ron Paul and rather fitting considering it's the 800th birthday of the Magna Carta next year.

Why do you seem to have a problem with referencing your claims. I can write things but they are absolutely meaningless without sources to back it up. The 75% number is important because if it's not true then Farage is lying about it, and it's also a point UKIP uses quite frequently to support leaving the EU.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Two posts from the Telegraph on this with link.......


7%?

I would suggest that Nick Clegg is quoting from this study that states that the EU accounts for 6.8 % of primary legislation and 14.1% of secondary legislation.

www.parliament.uk/briefing-pap...

It then goes on to state the following:

"Problems with the calculation

These figures are indicative of the impact of EU legislation on
national law-making but they are not the full story. For example, they
do not take account of EU “soft law” or the overwhelming majority of EU
regulations, which can be several times the number of directives (see
tables on page 12), and which are usually adopted in the Member States
by measures other than laws."


As Daniel Hannan has pointed out, the same report (after page 22) talks about between 22 and 50%. So Farage was too high and Clegg too low, oddly by around the same amount.

I'm inclined to believe the 50% claim although it appears to depend on the extent of domestic legislation within a year.


Why do you seem to have a problem with referencing your claims. I can write things but they are absolutely meaningless without sources to back it up. The 75% number is important because if it's not true then Farage is lying about it, and it's also a point UKIP uses quite frequently to support leaving the EU.

Then ask Ukip to back up their claims and not me. The same goes for Clegg and the Liberal Democrats.

I'm going by what the Vice Commissioner said, the former German President, David Cameron and the report above.

But either way, the extent of law isn't my prime concern. The concern for me is that we can no longer control our borders, our agricultural policy, our fisheries, our energy and increasingly our foreign policy because of our membership of the EU. If a government is elected for example to controi immigration, how can it do so whilst we remain in the EU with open borders to 400m+ people? It can't.

[GommeInc]

I'm inclined to believe the 50% claim although it appears to depend on the extent of domestic legislation within a year.
Indeed, which is another problem. When is it decided? During the drafting process, when it goes through Parliament or when it is enacted? The Prisoners Votes law will never be passed but just sits drafted - no Government had tackled it yet.

[The Don]

http://www.jcm.org.uk/blog/2009/06/what-percentage-of-laws-come-from-the-eu/
That sort of explains it. It depends what you consider as EU law as there are different types and nothing concrete. Pure EU law is probably 7%, but different contributing sources definitely raise this.

"We contacted Ms Reding’s press office to find out what source she was basing this on. In fact, the percentage was actually referring to something entirely different – where the European Parliament (consisting of elected representatives for each EU country) has an equal say to the European Council (made up of the governments of all EU countries) on EU laws, not UK laws."

So the 75% number comes from how much EU legislation the EU Parliament has a say in, compared to the EU Council. Which other contributing sources definitely raise this 15% number? This is all very wishy-washy with these numbers, but it's safe to assume it's far lower than Farage's 75% claim.

[Chippiewill]

To be honest, I think the exact figure is irrelevant, Westminster could be churning out a bunch of meaningless legislation (like naming post offices.. *stares at the US*) driving the figure way down, or it could be pushing out few key pieces of legislation that make big changes (like putting tuition fees up). There's no point adding up apples and oranges together in the same statistic, it just confuses people. Really both parties are at fault for making the debate about something so meaningless.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Indeed, which is another problem. When is it decided? During the drafting process, when it goes through Parliament or when it is enacted? The Prisoners Votes law will never be passed but just sits drafted - no Government had tackled it yet.

Indeed, it's very complex. And then there's the issue on how existing EU mandated law is affecting new law being made which I would also count as indirect EU law.


"We contacted Ms Reding’s press office to find out what source she was basing this on. In fact, the percentage was actually referring to something entirely different – where the European Parliament (consisting of elected representatives for each EU country) has an equal say to the European Council (made up of the governments of all EU countries) on EU laws, not UK laws."

So the 75% number comes from how much EU legislation the EU Parliament has a say in, compared to the EU Council. Which other contributing sources definitely raise this 15% number? This is all very wishy-washy with these numbers, but it's safe to assume it's far lower than Farage's 75% claim.

Well she would say that wouldn't she? It's like how another chap from the EU said something similar and then went back on it.

I don't actually have much idea as I don't deal with law - but as I stated above, i'm inclined to believe the 50% figure give or take 15% each year rather than 7% or 75%.

My two friends who also do Law tell me that the extent of EU law is massive.

[GommeInc]

To be honest, I think the exact figure is irrelevant, Westminster could be churning out a bunch of meaningless legislation (like naming post offices.. *stares at the US*) driving the figure way down, or it could be pushing out few key pieces of legislation that make big changes (like putting tuition fees up). There's no point adding up apples and oranges together in the same statistic, it just confuses people. Really both parties are at fault for making the debate about something so meaningless.
It's sort of useful but they need to proportion it better. 75% is too high and 7% is too low - plus weighing up what is considered key legislation. The only one that is of interest for this year is the Consumer Rights Bill, which is based on a Directive from a few years ago plus our common and domestic law (common law being case-law or "judge based law").

[The Don]

To be honest, I think the exact figure is irrelevant, Westminster could be churning out a bunch of meaningless legislation (like naming post offices.. *stares at the US*) driving the figure way down, or it could be pushing out few key pieces of legislation that make big changes (like putting tuition fees up). There's no point adding up apples and oranges together in the same statistic, it just confuses people. Really both parties are at fault for making the debate about something so meaningless.

Most definitely. It just irritates me when people blindly post numbers without sourcing them.
-:Undertaker:-; Yeh, between 15-50% seems to be about right, although this numbers pointless due to the point which Chippiewill mentioned, where the government could lower the number by making trivial legislation. Either way, be it 15% or 50%, I don't see how it matters in the grand scale of things. I'd much rather have the safety net of being a part of the worlds largest economy and working cooperatively with the rest of Europe rather than isolating ourselves and still having to follow Europe legislation.

[Kardan]

If people are saying between 15%-50% - it's surely completely irrelevant because it's such a large margin? You can't take any meaningful information out of that.

[The Don]

If people are saying between 15%-50% - it's surely completely irrelevant because it's such a large margin? You can't take any meaningful information out of that.

Yeh, Parliament pretty much said this themselves in the report I linked a few posts back. Still a far cry away from the 75% figure Farage loves throwing around.


All measurements have their problems and it is possible to justify any measure between
15% and 50% or thereabouts. To exclude EU regulations from the calculation is likely to
be an under-estimation of the proportion of EU-based national laws (see table on page
20), while to include all EU regulations in the calculation is probably an over-estimation
(see table above). The answer in numerical terms lies somewhere in between the two
approaches. The limitations of data also make it impossible to achieve an accurate
measure. We do not know, for example, how many regulations have direct application in
the UK - olive and tobacco growing regulations are unlikely to have much impact here,
but the UK implements such regulations along with olive and tobacco-growing Member
States.

Page 24 incase anyone is wondering.

[-:Undertaker:-]

To be honest, I think the exact figure is irrelevant, Westminster could be churning out a bunch of meaningless legislation (like naming post offices.. *stares at the US*) driving the figure way down, or it could be pushing out few key pieces of legislation that make big changes (like putting tuition fees up). There's no point adding up apples and oranges together in the same statistic, it just confuses people. Really both parties are at fault for making the debate about something so meaningless.

Yup, and it's also a question of how you measure law. Is it on a 1:1 basis? Is it weighted? If so, is it weighted by affect on other laws? Is it weighted by financial cost of implementing that law? And so on and so forth. It's like the Magna Carta or the Bill of Rights - on a 1:1 basis they'll be 0.000001% of British law over the past 800 years..... yet their effect on law is huge. How can you measure such a thing? I don't think you can really.

On the debates though with another comment, I think these debates are much better than the Leaders Debates we had last time (which i'm not a fan of). At least with this issue we've had an hours worth of coverage and it involves facts, stats and quotes.... something you can't really have with the leaders debates as it just turns into a soundbyte competition. I'd like to see more of them styled like this Europe debate: NHS, Education, Environment, Crime, Immigration etc...

[Chippiewill]

Just had a look at the Yougov survey's weighting, the number of UKIP supporters on the poll was adjusted from 170 down-to 90. Having read reports of the methodology I would as always take the poll with a severe grain of salt.

[-:Undertaker:-]

Not wanting to really reopen the 'how much law is EU law' question but Richard North has an interesting piece out this morning regarding this. He concludes what we did that you cannot really tell what percentage is EU law or not, but that Clegg was purposely skewing the HoC library report as it didn't conclude 7% and the same for the 75% figure. I think what I and others said on around half (50%) give or take depending on the legislation of that year was pretty much right.

http://www.eureferendum.com/blogview.aspx?blogno=84820


http://www.eureferendum.com/images/000a%20Laws-027%20debate.jpg


Almost for as long as I can remember, there has been a debate about how much law the EU produces, with various estimates ranging - as we saw from Nick Clegg last night – from seven percent, to as much as ninety, as a proportion of UK law. We see something of the debate in this clip from This Sceptic Isle in 2006, with Peter Hitchens illustrating the sheer volume of the law pouring out of Brussels.

But the clip also illustrates how long the debate has been going on – that was eight years ago. But Booker and I were thrashing this out in the early nineties, only then to come to the conclusion that the issue was irresolvable. There were too many imponderables and variables.

Not least, there is an element of comparing chalk and cheese here. Of the nearly four thousand Statutory Instruments produced last year, a huge majority were road traffic orders, or administrative instruments of purely technical relevance.

Thus, just taking a few off the database, for instance, we have the Financial Services (Banking Reform) Act 2013 (Commencement No. 4) Order 2014; the Non-Domestic Rating (Levy and Safety Net) (Amendment) Regulations 2014; the Marriage of Same Sex Couples (Use of Armed Forces’ Chapels) Regulations 2014; and the Air Navigation (Restriction of Flying) (Jet Formation Display Teams) (No. 3) Regulations 2014.

Then we have the A46 Trunk Road (Stoneleigh, Warwickshire) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014; the A5 Trunk Road (Upton Magna, Shropshire) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014; the M5 Motorway and A46 Trunk Road (Ashchurch, Gloucestershire) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014; the M32 Motorway (Junctions 1-3) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014; the A46 Trunk Road (M4 Junction 18 to Cold Ashton Roundabout) (Temporary Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014; the M4 Motorway (Junctions 17-18) (Temporary Restriction and Prohibition of Traffic) Order 2014; and so on and so on.

In numerical terms, how can these possibly compare with, for instance, Commission Implementing Directive 2014/21/EU of 6 February 2014 determining minimum conditions and Union grades for pre-basic seed potatoes; Directive 2014/27/EU of 26 February 2014 amending Council Directives 92/58/EEC, 92/85/EEC, 94/33/EC, 98/24/EC and Directive 2004/37/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council, in order to align them to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008 on classification, labelling and packaging of substances and mixtures; and Commission Implementing Directive 2014/37/EU of 27 February 2014 amending Council Directive 91/671/EEC relating to the compulsory use of safety belts and child restraint systems in vehicles?

What we can do, of course, is quantify both sets of legislation, with enough accuracy to make a point. Roughly, there 3,969 General Acts and 71,851 UK Statutory Instruments on the UK legal database, making 75,820 in all. This compares with 20,868 EU acts (directives, regulations and decisions) currently in force.

However, as numerous commentators have observed, not least Booker and I, it is impossible to make accurate comparisons, or come up with an accurate percentage, one with another. For a whole load of complex technical reasons, you cannot say that 20,868 EU acts represent "x percent" of the 75,820 UK laws.

Thus, when Farage was confronted with Clegg insisting that "seven percent" of UK laws were made by the EU, he should not have tried to argue different percentages. Instead, had he been better briefed, he could have pointed to the House of Commons paper, on which Clegg relied.

One should recall that the paper said that, "over the twelve-year period from 1997 to 2009 6.8 percent of primary legislation (Statutes) and 14.1 percent of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments) had a role in implementing EU obligations …".

In other words, Clegg, in insisting on the seven percent figure, was lying. The House of Commons says that 6.8 percent (rounded up to seven) of primary legislation (Statutes) had a role in implementing EU obligations, but 14.1 percent of secondary legislation (Statutory Instruments), also had a role. And since by far the more numerous quantum is SIs, to cite only statutes is completely to misrepresent the House of Commons briefing paper.

This, though, does not gainsay the point that comparisons are fatuous. We should not make them, and to enter into an argument about comparative percentages is to get trapped into a battle you can't win.

For sure, Farage could have slapped Clegg down on the seven percent figure, but – as we all know – Farage doesn't do detail, and money that could have been devoted to research has been spent on other things.

In his place, I would then have quoted the number of EU laws (about 21,000) and the number of UK laws (about 76,000) and let the audience draw their own conclusions. But I could also have quoted the House of Commons paper, which retailed that the British Government had estimated that "around 50 percent of UK legislation with a significant economic impact originates from EU legislation".

But what I most certainly would have done is quote the conclusion of the paper on which Mr Clegg relied, which said that, "there is no totally accurate, rational or useful way of calculating the percentage of national laws based on or influenced by the EU".

One could, of course, say that this is being wise after the event, except that this argument is meat and drink to the eurosceptic cause. Going into battle with Clegg, Farage should have been better prepared. There was a good chance that this issue would have come up, and the House of Commons study is one of the definitive works on the subject.

Gaming the issue, however, - as we discussed in our overnight piece, Farage could have taken the high ground, and outflanked Clegg with what would have been the unexpected assertion that much of EU law is made elsewhere, at global level, where we need to be.

Often, when I criticise Farage (and UKIP), though, UKIP supporters lament than I am not being "constructive" and offering a "positive message". But, in fact, for many years, I have been arguing that UKIP's research capability is inadequate. And the "positive message" to take from that is very simple: it needs to be improved, as I was telling Farage to his face over ten years ago.

What we saw last night, then, was Farage winging it. He was poorly prepared on important details, and played a poor tactical game. Had he been master of his subject, he could have slapped Clegg down with a few vital "killer points" and dominated the debate. Instead, as so often, Farage under-performed.

This we cannot afford. If Farage is to present himself as the champion of the anti-EU movement, then he has to do much better the next time he meets Clegg. He takes our money. It's about time he earned his keep.

There's also Andrew Neil on the BBC taking apart the 7% figure Clegg gave: http://order-order.com/2014/03/27/cleggs-facts-turn-out-to-be-fiction/


Just had a look at the Yougov survey's weighting, the number of UKIP supporters on the poll was adjusted from 170 down-to 90. Having read reports of the methodology I would as always take the poll with a severe grain of salt.

Yeah I saw that this morning. Guido has posted something on it too - http://order-order.com/2014/03/27/libdem-poll-spin-clegg-actually-lost-65-25/

Tbh YouGov & Populus are always doing it. I only usually pay attention to Survation & Opinium.

[Chippiewill]

Yeah I saw that this morning. Guido has posted something on it too - http://order-order.com/2014/03/27/libdem-poll-spin-clegg-actually-lost-65-25/

I think Guido actually misread, the Libdems were trying to give off the impression that the sample was heavily skewed to UKIP and hadn't been weighted (Whereas Guido interpreted the libdems as saying it had been weighted wrongly). This was almost true because the sample hadn't been demographically weighted (Which is what they quoted), but it had been (And arguably more importantly) political intention and referendum intention weighted.

All in all the Libdems were being even slimier than Guido thought.

[The Don]

I think Guido actually misread, the Libdems were trying to give off the impression that the sample was heavily skewed to UKIP and hadn't been weighted (Whereas Guido interpreted the libdems as saying it had been weighted wrongly). This was almost true because the sample hadn't been demographically weighted (Which is what they quoted), but it had been (And arguably more importantly) political intention and referendum intention weighted.

All in all the Libdems were being even slimier than Guido thought.

I'm confused, was the original sample skewed or was the weighted one skewed?

- - - Updated - - -

Also, my friend shared this article on facebook from Vice.

Link (http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/the-one-vital-thing-nigel-farage-and-nick-clegg-were-never-going-to-discuss-during-their-eu-debate?utm_source=vicefbuk)

Usually I like vice but this articles ridiculous. The debate about whether we should be in the EU is more important than the individual trade deals the EU makes. They only had an hour to talk so it's not as if they could cover every possible aspect whereas vice is making it look like some sort of cover up.

[Chippiewill]

I'm confused, was the original sample skewed or was the weighted one skewed?

The original survey data is skewed with more members of UKIP taking part, it was weighted to represent national average across voting intentions. The libdems tried to make out that it hadn't been weighted at all by quoting the part where they didn't weight demographics.