Latest from UKIP Daily

Letters to the Editor – Friday 22nd September 2017

Today, the PM Theresa May will give a speech at the meeting of the EU leaders in Florence. Brexit, it would seem, is going to be back on the agenda and UKIP needs to start re-focussing on this, and on getting back into the debate. Two of the letters published today will be of great value. The first comes from our correspondent Roger Arthur:


We saw an excellent article in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, exposing the spin associated with “Soft Brexit”.

To recap, the UK carries a direct cost of £11bn pa net to be in the EU, or about 5% of its £220bn pa of exports to the EU.

But as seen from the weblink below, tariffs around the world have fallen typically to below 3%. So the UK seems to be paying around 5% of the value of its exports to the Single Market, to avoid a 3% tariff.

So it seems that the government could give 3% pa to UK companies (eg through lower tax bills) and keep the other 2%.

Also Professor Minford estimates that prices paid by UK consumers, are 8% higher than they need be, because we are in the Customs Union.

As if that were not bad enough, the UK also carries an indirect cost for complying with EU regulations – despite the fact that over 90% of UK companies don’t even export to the EU.

Indeed in 2005 the UK Treasury issued a Paper, estimating that compliance cost at 6% of GDP, equating now to over £100bn pa (£2bn per week) assuming a UK GDP of £1,800bn pa – which exceeds the UK deficit.

If there is a net benefit of remaking on the single market and customs union, then why have we not seen calculations to make the case? Perhaps the answer is above.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

(The link shows that average world tariffs have fallen to below 3%.)

The next letter also addresses Brexit, the EU and our money – and the MSM. It is from our correspondent Septimus Octavius:


Our esteemed Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, published a very long article in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday 16 September.  Almost all of it was based on actual historical facts, though some did comprise optimistic projections for the future.  Among the factual parts appeared this small paragraph, constituting just a tiny percentage of the whole:

And yes – once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS, provided we use that cash injection to modernise and make the most of new technology.”

It is extremely important to note that this paragraph is true.  The gross sum the UK pays to the EU is indeed £350 million per week, and the UK will certainly regain control of all that money when it is mercifully Released from the Treaties.  If one takes into account all the money which the EU pays to the UK, or any person or institution in the UK, in any way, shape or form, the net figure works out at £161 million per week.  That is a lot of money, and the maximum amount that could be spent on the NHS, even if the UK matched every penny or cent that is currently funded by the EU.

It is indicative of the hostility of the press generally and the BBC in particular to the whole idea of Brexit, that all this criticism has been made of the Foreign Secretary for telling the truth in this way.

If one analyses carefully why the fact of the £350 million has been painted as a lie, it is clear that the sole reason is that we are not enjoying it NOW, after the vote to leave, which is of course plain stupid.  We are of course still paying it to the EU, and will continue so to do while ever we are not Released from the Treaties. Talk about fake news, eh?

Respectfully, Septimus Octavius

Finally, Jane Collins MEP writes about extremism and the latest terrorist attack:


Reading about what can only be described as the failed £40 million anti extremism scheme PREVENT launched by the Labour party, one factor that seems to be preventing it from working is the people involved. Claims that they are more concerned about being called ‘racist’ than exposing the radicalisation of young muslims in this country.

Deja vu?

Unfortunately so.

Let’s think back to 2014 and the Jay report into the industrial levels of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. Former MP Dennis MacShane admitted that he didn’t want to ‘rock the multicultural boat’ when confronted with the fact it was predominantly Pakistani Muslim men who were sexually and physically abusing and raping young, white girls. Even his successor Sarah Champion ‘resigned’ from her position in the Labour shadow cabinet when she mentioned the ‘M’ word even though she, like I, will have regular contact with survivors of this sadly ongoing situation.

When will we grow a backbone in this country? We obviously have jihadi terrorists in our communities: more than we probably know. It is alarming to hear that the foster couple in Sunbury-on-Thames, about whom I have heard very positive things from people who previously worked with them, raised concerns about his behaviour. This couple were not naive, they were savvy. They had previously fostered children from troubled backgrounds and done great work. If their concerns were reported to PREVENT, what happened? Why was this person allowed to take a bomb onto a train and a tube? Deaths were prevented not by the systems we have in this country, but by a lack of ability in chemistry of the perpetrator.

Concerns about ‘racism’ should not be relevant when dealing with this growing problem: saving innocent lives is what matters.

We need a full investigation into these claims and the buck stops with whoever put innocent lives at risk.

Respectfully, Jane Collins MEP


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

9 Comments on Letters to the Editor – Friday 22nd September 2017

  1. To Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, David Davis and Andrea Leadsom,

    EU Citizens Rights in the UK and UK Citizens Rights in the EU, the following parallel scenario occurred to me.
    A Union that lasted from 1922 to 1991, 70 years, about the same length of time as the EU has existed.
    That was the Soviet Union.

    Is Brussels really arguing Russian Citizens that lived in Eastern European countries back in 1991 should have been given the same Rights as Russian citizens and come under the jurisdiction of the Russian Courts? What of those citizens of Russian origin in Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Moldova, Ukraine, and 8 other Central Asia and Transeucasia that they should all have the ‘protection’ of the Russian Courts? Really? .

    If ever there was an argument against Brussels demands for EU Citizens Rights in the UK, surely this is it.

    No one knows what the future will hold. The UK Government is Sovereign.

    Malcolm Watson

  2. I would like to draw everyone’s attention to two government petitions:
    “Hold a referendum on the final Brexit deal”. This has 107,950 signatures.

    “Leave the EU immediately”. This has only 14,668 signatures.

    Come on, ukipdaily readers, let’s get signing and passing it round. It’s petition no. 38669474. There is a facility to Facebook, email, and Tweet the petition, too.

    • Panmelia,

      I’m f*****g fuming, I could kill these politicians!

      • Panmelia,

        By the way I have signed the petition but would rather sign May’s death warrant.

        • DD, I have often re-run the TV footage in my mind of the commie Ceascescus (dunno if that’s right spelling, but don’t care), husband and wife dictators of Romania, having their hands tied behind their backs, then taken outside and shot after they had ruined the country, oppressed the people and set themselves up as demi-gods. The wife squawked protests and tried to give orders right up to the moment she was blindfolded, but was resolutely ignored by the silent soldiers. Then – bang! bang! Gone for good. There is merit in such brevity of action.

  3. T May’s speech. N Farage summed it up nicely “Out in name only”.
    For once, the British MSM reps asked telling questions but May never answered the questions, instead embarking on a circular repetition of parts of her speech. No answer to whether new EU regulations during the transition phase would be enforceable. No answer to whether further payment would be necessary during the transition phase. No answer to “Give an example of a single specific issue where the EU has moved towards the UK position” just a general “of course they have”. No answer means no trust in my book. The time for politic speak is over but she just showed how out of touch she really is with the British public. This was as bad as her GE campaign. If UKIP ever had a purpose then it is still “Game On” because if we are still tied to the EU then we cannot win any other battle.

  4. Septimus Octavius
    I checked the EU costs a while ago. The £350m a week seems to be a gross figure never actually paid because there is the Thatcher rebate. It appears therefore to always have been a misleading claim.

    Now for the really stinking part of this. Britain doesn’t have that money and won’t have that money when we stop paying the net £8 billion.

    The government in 2016 had to borrow about £45 billion to cover expenditures, part of which was £8bn borrowed to pay the EU.

    If we had not been in the EU the government would only have had to borrow £37 billion.

    So instead of not having £45bn it wouldn’t have had £39bn. That is different to having £8bn to spend.

    When they talk about how to spend the £8bn they are fantasising.

    What they mean is “Instead of borrowing £8bn to give to the EU maybe we should borrow £8bn to spend on the NHS.” They could just as easily pick some other arbitrary number.

  5. Completely agree with Jack below. There is no-one actually on our side in these so called negotiations – it’s basically the European Union and it’s supporters arguing about how much everyone can get away with foisting onto the British people – especially in order to make sure that Leaving will never be tried anywhere else.
    England cannot even declare a form of UDI, because not only is it not devolved, but even if it was, its voter base is the Islamic Labour Party. Wales and Scotland are also led by people fully signed up to the European agenda, so Nationhood has already been destroyed. A foretaste of what is to come.

  6. All of these issues may be seen from different perspective if one were to consider that government is not on our side but signed up to the globalist agenda.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.