Today’s edition of “Letters” starts with an excellently timed letter from our correspondent and legal eagle Septimus Octavius. It is an Open Letter to David Davis, whose statement on the current Brexit talks is published here on UKIP Daily for all to read. This Open Letter ought to be handed around because the points raised are of hgue important and ought to inform our debates on Brexit:

Good Morning Mr Davis

The government, with one notable exception, has at last realised that the EU is hopelessly intransigent, incapable of rational negotiation, and is so arrogantly pig-headed that it really might cut off its nose to spite its face.

The recent moves seriously to address the distinct possibility of a “no deal” exit are massively to be welcomed, as is the long overdue marginalisation of Mr Hammond.

Let us recall the splendid provisions of Article 50, as activated by the UK. As the clock chimes midnight in Brussels on 28 March 2019, the UK is mercifully released from the Treaties of the European Union without having to pay any extra single cent or penny for it, but only if no agreement has been finalised before that moment.

That is the definitive “no deal” scenario, something which happens automatically. The Labour Party’s threat to “vote against” a no deal exit is utter and complete nonsense.

However, equally nonsensical were the comments of the Prime Minister about continued influence of the ECJ during a transition period. There cannot be any transition period unless provision for it is made in an Agreement! A deal!

Everyone knows that the most sensible solution from all viewpoints is a deal preserving free trade and mutual cooperation, and it is just possible that when we walk away from the talks, the EU might just come to its senses and so agree.  Unfortunately, I do not hold out much hope for such a happy ending.

Conversely, fortunately, no deal would be fairly painless for the UK.  Firstly, no “divorce bill”!  Secondly, because the UK is a massive net importer from the EU, WTO tariffs would be a much bigger problem for the EU than it would be for the UK.

All of a sudden, the world is looking a little brighter.

Regards, Septimus Octavius

Staying with the EU and the Brexit talks, our correspondent Roger Arthur raises another important point in this next letter:

Sir,

This article suggests that we should stop “monstering” Hammond.

But he can’t seem to see that the EU is not acting in good faith. They are running down the clock, hoping that Corbyn will get into number 10. They will take all of his olive branches and then do what they did to Greece, ie kick him in the teeth.

Extending our subjugation under the  ECJ, will only give the EU comfort and take them nearer to their goal of elevating Corbyn. He should have heeded all of the warning bells, including the recent EU initiative to hold discussions with Corbyn.

There is no case to delay exit and if Mr Hammond can’t grasp that, then he surely must go.

Of course businesses might like to extend wage compression and tax avoidance opportunities, but not at the cost of seeing Corbyn in No 10 and the UK left under ECJ jurisdiction. That is not what the majority voted for.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

Then we have this letter on BBC procedures to screen their audiences – something we all have suspected but now have proof, from the horse’s mouth, as it were:

Sir,

UKIP Daily readers may do well to keep an eye on the BBC in these turbulent times. This link was just sent to me for a Question Time session in Portsmouth:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/5vyK2GwYrdQGFvCJyKNfZhn/join-the-question-time-audience

It is enlightening to see the questionnaire in the link for choosing/vetting/packing the Question Time audience. There is no attempt here to disguise the level of detail they want about audience applicants, when they could just pick randomly from the group.  Now cross reference this level of detail they ask for against the repeatedly anti-Brexit/British/democratic/centre-right thinking audiences they clearly choose and the scale of their propaganda operation is revealed clearly.  

Add this to the fantastic salaries, spectacular levels of wasting money, sex scandals, the over attendance on favourite minority groups, the censorship of any pro-British matters, the failure to voice the real concerns of the British people, and the deeply poor ‘stale popcorn’ level output of the general programs, and perhaps it is time for licence payer’s revolt to call time on this corrupt “Ministry of Truth”.

Respectfully, Mike from the CSR2020

Finally, a brief note from our correspondent Felicia Catto:

Sir,

I find it disconcerting, if not astonishing, that so many readers here on UKIP Daily are pouring scorn and criticism over the new leader, Henry Bolton.

Yes, we get it he may not be your cup of tea, yes we get it that not all voted for him, and yes, we get it that it’s fine to criticise. We also get it that he’s not the PM or US President, so cannot expect to get a 100-day-honeymoon period. But Paul Nuttall, faced with the same problems (about which he didn’t do much at all) was not attacked until after the Stoke by-election.

So why are so many unwilling to extend a grace period to Henry Bolton? Are they afraid he might succeed, are they afraid members who hadn’t voted for him might find they agree with him after all?

Or are they hoping he might chuck it all in and go away? Then what? AMW and her new party taking over UKIP, is that the aim?

Whatever happened to fairness? Does that not apply any longer?

Respectfully, Felicia Catto

Print Friendly, PDF & Email