Golf, strangling animals and masturbation..

As the old Monty Python sketch goes:

'His hobbies are golf, strangling animals and masturbation..'

'Oh dear, he's let himself down a bit there, golf's not too popular round here'

And for 'golf' in that context, read 'UKIP':

It seems to me that significant numbers of people have started to see through the lies put about by the political establishment, the BBC and many other main stream media (MSM) vehicles about UKIP being racists, little Englanders, swivel-eyed-loons etc etc. But it is also true to say that many haven't, to the point where, in polite company, one might be forgiven for avoiding the subject rather than be looked at as if you were something nasty that someone in the group had just trodden in and walked all over the new Axminster.

It tells you something about the power that these people wield when this is the case, and also, I would suggest, something about the size of the achievement of UKIP over the last week in the face of it.

When one's own wife and family start making some worried remarks about one's political views it is, I think, time to at least try to set the record straight in terms of one's motivations and beliefs. So here goes:

I've been strongly anti the EU since the mid-late 1980s and have followed the subject fairly closely since then. My major issue is that of (lack of) transparency and the salami-slice tactics of moving inexorably towards a single European state that none of us voted for or has had explained to us.

The EU started out with the 'Common Market' which was about free trade across the continent and was arguably a good thing, so long as it also allowed free trade with the rest of the word on a national basis (which it did). The starting point was also about a utopian goal that by bringing countries closer together through trade, the Common Market would also make European wars far less likely. Again I tend to agree with that as a goal, so long as the vehicle was free trade and, therefore increasing prosperity across the continent.

But there was a more sinister side to the machinery in Brussels: the ultimate goal of establishing a single European place, a 'United States' of Europe and that is not something that the people have either been consulted on nor expressed their desire to achieve.

So we went from the 'Common Market' to the 'European Economic Community' (retaining the 'trade' link but watering it down and bringing in the idea of 'community'). Salami slice one.

Then we (they) dropped 'Economic' and it became the 'European Community' - so not just about trade anymore but much more besides. And then, latterly it has become the 'European Union' the 'Eurozone' and it now has its own currency. Salami slices two, three and four - and all without our having much if any say in the process. Yes there we some referendums in Denmark and Eire where a 'no' vote was ignored and the issue put back to the people until they came up with the 'right' answer.

As I say, I follow this stuff quite closely but I have never seen any kind of public explanation for this creeping control mechanism being enacted. If it is so good for us 'ordinary' people, why aren't we being told about it in simple terms? Why is it being achieved slice by slice and in a manner of keeping us in the dark about it?

Is it because there is a sinister ulterior motive at work here? You have to wonder since the direction is away from nation states having control over their own destinies and towards a centralised system of government for the whole continent which massively reduces the democratic influence of the 'ordinary' voter and hands power to people we didn't elect and who, therefore, have very little understanding of our individual circumstances wherever you live in Europe.

If one didn't know better, one might conclude that this creeping takeover of Europe by the EU in terms of political control, law-making, financial control, a (proposed) single defense force etc., was an attempt to take-over all aspects of our lives in much the same way Mr Hitler envisaged before the last unpleasantness, but using banks instead of tanks.

Thing is, one doesn't know better. It seems to me that this is exactly what's been happening and that the consequences are diametrically opposed to the founding principles of the Common Market:

Far from promoting prosperity across the continent, the single currency effectively straps everyone to Germany's highly efficient economic machine. So Germany enjoys a 30% (at least) exchange rate advantage because its currency is measured in terms of international value with the likes of France, Italy, Spain, Portugal and many less productive economies in the mix. And the economies of Southern Europe, tied in to the Euro, cannot devalue their currencies in order to rebalance their economies and compete on a world stage, they're tied in. All they can do is contract and suffer mass unemployment, particularly amongst the young whilst strong German companies buy-up previously successful southern European companies at an alarming rate.

And this economic disaster (not too strong a term) far from making conflict less likely, is now delivering a growth in far right and far left extremist parties whose members have very little hope of achieving prosperity. How did that go last time it happened Mr Barroso?

Anyway I don't want to bang on about the nitty gritty of EU all night - there are many more blogs on details if you're interested:

Here - economic blitzkrieg
Here - Single currency
Here - Will Brexit cost UK jobs?
Here - importance of an EU referendum

I think I've established my opposition to the EU?

So who then does one vote for in the EU elections? You could argue that voting at all confers legitimacy on the EU 'project'. But by keeping the salami slices as quiet as possible in terms of public understanding, that lack of interest is exactly what the EU wants. It doesn't want mass engagement; it wants to be left alone to get on with this take-over so that by the time we realise it's happening (and it is happening right now) it will be too late for us to do anything about it.

I am convinced, by the way, that the straight bananas and other joke EU rules were part of a carefully considered programme to make voters switch off so that we would also ignore the big decisions when they arose.

In continental Europe the far right (FN in France, Golden Dawn in Greece, Danish People's Party etc) and far left Syrza (Greece) won a major share of the EU MEP vote. In my view this is an additional reason for us to leave the EU - it's becoming an extreme, ungovernable, dangerous mess.

In the UK if you're anti EU but not of an extreme political persuasion the choice is limited to say the least. The Lib Dems would sell the shirt off your back to help the EU. Labour does not want a referendum and wants the EU to continue rumbling on towards total control of our lives. Dave wants reform and has pledged to deliver a referendum - hurrah! But he'll be campaigning for an 'in' vote whatever the result of his renegotiations and the chances of him securing anything meaningful when 28 other countries' would have to unanimously agree, are vanishingly small despite the kicking the EU has received this week.

So UKIP then. The only party (I nearly said 'mainstream' not sure it's there yet) with a clear anti EU stance. If, like me, you see the EU as the biggest single issue we face (given that it either does or will control almost every aspect of our lives if it continues on its publicly-stated path unchecked) then there's not much of a choice really is there?

Some of its policies and in particular its campaign posters made me wince and many people 'took' from them, with the unabashed help of the BBC and other MSM titles, that this equaled a racist party.

I think the term 'racist' may have been banded about too much in recent years, mainly as a lazy but effective means of shutting up people with whom you disagreed, but it still ranks with me as a very strong term of insult and attack. So before you use it, you ought to be very sure of your facts.

Is UKIP racist? Is it, therefore an 'extreme' party? Is it anti-Gay?

UKIP's stated aim is to regain control of our borders - something which has been lost to us because of EU rules on the free movement of people across the Eurozone. Labour has admitted and apologised for the open door policy which saw 3million people come into the UK between 2004 and 2010. But it wasn't just an open door, it was a 'please come in' policy motivated for political (voter) reasons. Labour now wants to restrict immigration. Is that racist?

The Tories want to reduce net immigration drastically. Are they therefore racist?

The EU strongly restricts entrants from outside of the Eurozone and its trade tariffs are effectively stopping African farmers from trading their way into the first world. Is that racist?

Under EU law Britain cannot stop the ingression of known criminal gangs from Romania and other parts of former Eastern Europe, but it also cannot allow skilled people from India, Asia and other Commonwealth countries from coming to the UK. How's your 'racist UKIP' jibe going now?

Is UKIP 'extreme'? It's stance is effectively Thatcherite Tory - low tax, strong law, strong defense of the realm but also pro UK business and manufacturing, pro British jobs. It wants the ability for the UK - the 6th largest economy in the world - to make it's own global trade deals instead of being hamstrung by EU rules which stop us from doing this and instead force us to make deals collectively with 28 other countries including Romania, Bulgaria, Spain and Greece. Extreme? Thatcher would have voted UKIP and so would Tony Benn.

Anti gay? UKIP opposed Gay marriage as did a lot of Tory and Labour MPs. It's stance was not anti gay per sé but anti the marriage thing on religious grounds. It has never been anti civil partnerships, it just took an approach on the marriage issue as did so many others. It accepts the law as it now is and would not repeal said law.

In conclusion, I am not a UKIP member - by instinct I am a Tory, albeit one who laments the centre ground, 'common purpose' (google it) stance that Dave et al are currently taking. I hope Dave will see sense. I hope that we not only get a referendum but that we vote for 'out' and that somehow Dave might be forced down such a route by the EU's intransigence. I'm not holding my breath, but the EU truly is the biggest issue we face as a nation and I am grateful to Mr Farage for taking a stance that I can support and for UKIP not being the extreme or racist party that so many ill-informed people still believe it to be. Because then I would not be able to support it. If it was racist I would not support it in any way.

If you think it is racist or extreme to want voters to have some influence over how we are governed; to be able to kick out people who do not deliver what we as a nation wants; if you think handing over power and control over everything we do, read, think to unelected Eurocrats is a good thing.. given what our recent ancestors fought and shed blood to oppose quite recently, then, with respect, I think you're quite mad.

But, and let's be crystal clear on this, if I tell you I advocated voting UKIP last week, make sure you are in posession of incontrovertible facts before you even consider calling me a racist. And let me help you, in advance, on this. There aren't any.

Thanks for reading.