Latest from UKIP Daily

Letters to the Editor – Tuesday 17th October 2017

Today’s letters reflect the far-ranging analytical interests and skills of our correspondents. The first comes from Septimus Octavius who puts the result of the Austrian elections (Sunday 15th October) into perspective:


All the results of the Austrian election are just about through now, and the young (31) Sebastian Kurz leader of the OVP looks certain to emerge as the winner, though as ever a coalition will be needed in order to form a government.  The OVP had to become the party tough on immigration and widely Eurosceptic so as to enable this victory, effectively taking on the clothes of the “right-wing populist” Freedom Party, which looks like coming second, though it will be a close run with the Social Democratic Party.  The SDP, of course, until very recently, had formed the bedrock of Austrian government for many years.

Anyway, it seems, barring something unexpected happening, that the OVP will go into coalition with the Freedom Party to form the next Austrian government, which will thus be fervently keen on limiting and controlling immigration, and equally fervently hostile to the EU.  The world will paint it as an “extreme right wing” administration, and something to be viewed with intense foreboding as having happened in Austria.

However, we know only too well what they mean by this, it being a reference to the mass annihilation of Jews (and others, but mainly Jews) in that part of the world in the Second World War.  The comparison is therefore wholly inaccurate, as this government is not a hater of any minority, and has absolutely no intention of killing anyone.

It must be remembered that the very word “Nazi” derives from the German for “National Socialist”; and it is in socialism today, particularly here in the UK, that we find the seeds of that same hatred of Jews.  It will be recalled that there was actually a lenient reference to Holocaust Denial at a fringe meeting at the Labour Party Conference a few weeks ago, this being a typical symptom of the virulent antisemitism that courses like a poison through the veins and arteries of Mr Corbyn’s Labour Party, starting very much with him (the “friend of Hamas”), and stretching all the way down to the foot soldiers of Momentum.

God help us all if these thugs actually get into power.

Respectfully, Septimus Octavius

Today’s second letter is by our correspondent Mike from the CSR2020. It is self-explanatory:


Re: “Christian Printer refused to Create Business Cards for Trans-Gender Portsmouth Woman” (link to the report):

Another “coincidence” that a transgender person, pushing LGBT, contacts a Christian thinking business (in another city) which ends up in a public conflict in the Press to demonise any who dare to object to their agenda. People do have a right to say no, customers can choose which shop they buy from and business people have a right to choose whom they trade with. It is called freedom.

I am curious why of all the like cases that have ended up in the courts and papers, e.g. wedding cakes, hotel rooms, etc., why these people have never asked an Islamic thinking printer, cake maker or hotel if they would provide them with the requisite service. Why is there such a push to hold gay marriages in Churches whose teaching forbid homosexuality and yet we never see such a court case against a Mosque who preach the murder of Gays?

If the aim is to get some cards printed, you can do that in a thousand places or do it online by filling in a template. If the aim is to cause problems and attack the Christian faith, then such people need to consider employing some of the tolerance they demand from others.

Against the backdrop of murder, rapes, acid attacks, child grooming & rape gangs, drugs, Female Genital Mutilation, forced marriage, sex slavery and terrorism, perhaps we should ask the local people if they think registering the refusal to print some business cards as a Hate Crime is a valuable use of our woefully inadequate Police resources?

Let us not forget, Hate Crime is only Thought Crime renamed and has no place outside of a totalitarian Police State.

Respectfully, Mike from the CSR2020

Today’s last letter is a timely analysis about the cost of remaining in the Single Market. It is by our correspondent Roger Arthur:


Data from the WorldBank show that tariffs around the world have fallen typically to below 3%, but of course each country has different product profiles and will pay different average % tariffs.

The UK itself carries a direct cost of £11bn pa net (212m per week) to be in the EU, or about 9.4% of its £117bn pa exports to the EU. If we add the £3.1 bn in UK VAT receipts siphoned off by the EU the 9.4% figure increases to 12%, with a total net direct cost of £14.1bn.

The next report (see here) suggests that if the UK leaves the EU without a trade deal, UK exporters could face the potential impact of £5.2 billion in tariffs on goods being sold to the EU, which equates to 4.4% of £117bn pa. (EU exporters would of course face higher tariffs on goods coming to the UK).

So the UK seems to be paying around £14.1bn (or 12%) on the value of its £117bn pa  exports to the Single Market, to avoid £5.2bn (or 4.4%) in tariffs. The government could give £5.2bn pa to UK companies (eg through lower tax bills) and keep the balance.

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

So there is nothing there to compensate for the loss of our ability to have laws proposed in our own Parliament, by MPs who are accountable to us. There will be short term problems, but there is no long term case to remain in the Single Market.

That probably gives a clue as to why 165 countries beyond the EU, are happy to keep trading with the EU (with an average 3% tariff) without paying a membership fee.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur


Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Vivian Evans (322 Articles)
Vivian is a UKIP patron, Vice Chair of UKIP Cardiff and Editor in Chief of UKIP Daily

8 Comments on Letters to the Editor – Tuesday 17th October 2017

  1. I do recall that when it first started VAT was said to be used to pay our EU subs but that since purchase tax would be removed we would see little difference. I think that these days most of it goes into government coffers, it’s increased hugely from the original figure. In addition new and extra taxes are now levied on all sorts of things, from sand to insurance to betting and even rubbish disposal. These are all blamed on EU policy, in many cases rightly so but the EU has been an excuse to rob us for far too long.
    Once we leave Government will have to come clean, another reason why no party but UKIP wants Brexit.

  2. “If we add the £3.1 bn in UK VAT receipts siphoned off by the EU …” What!

    Am I the only dumb cluck that didn’t know VAT was an EU tax?

    In my view this should be addressed in UKIP policy.

    Perhaps being the party that will abolish VAT should be considered. Just think how this would help us in the next election. (Further to a comment made below.)

  3. To Septimus Octavius, I just found the following hilarious:
    “Unelected Juncker Orders Austria’s Kurz to Form ‘Pro-Europe’ Government”:

    The best bit is when Juncker says: “With these right-wing populists, it is neither possible to debate nor having a dialogue.” 😀

    Which is ironic considering how the liberal-left are unable to debate because they refuse to listen to any opinion that differs from their own.

  4. Well said Roger Arthur, you’ve pretty much confirmed what I believe.
    All these people who keep bleating that the UK ‘needs’ to remain in the single market (internal market) just aren’t looking at the bigger picture.
    VAT is a great example. I tried explaining to someone the other day that VAT is an ‘EU tax’ and that most of the revenue collected actually goes to the EU and not to the UK treasury.
    So when we leave the EU, we can scrap this tax. Talk of prices ‘going up’ are nonsense, when we consider that scrapping VAT could offset any increased costs, and in many cases may actually see consumer prices come down.
    A lot of people also forget that the UK does still import loads of goods from outside the UK (China, for example), which will incur tariffs at present, and will continue to do so after we leave the EU.
    A lot was being made the other week about the USA imposing massive tariffs on Bombardier products being imported from the UK. While I sympathise with workers in Northern Ireland who may lose their jobs as a result, I noticed on Question Time, as well as other media coverage, that no-one picked up on the fact that the UK does not deal directly with other countries when it comes to trade, but it is all done through the EU! Yet it was our own government that was facing all the MSM criticism and calls to “do something”. While bound by the single market and customs union, sadly there is nothing the Government can do (except accelerate the ‘leave’ process and work out a sensible trade deal with the US).

    • Stuart you say
      “most of the revenue collected (from VAT?) goes to the EU.
      Can you explain that and give figures?
      I would have thought only a minor portion collected went to the EU

  5. Thanks Roger. I always figured that was the case but didn’t have the figures to back it up. We were bound to have been paying over the odds to pay for all the EU vanity projects.

  6. Three excellent letters, there, but if I may make a couple of minor quibbles with Roger’s:

    1. The EU itself accurately refers to the “Internal Market”, rather than “single”. I wish more people would; the point being that the Internal Market is intended to be internal to a European superstate (I know it doesn’t work quite like that in practice, but it certainly seems to me that “membership” of the EU Internal Market is intended as a way *in* to the EU, not out.) I wish “Internal Market” would catch on here at home, and I wish journalists would ask politicians how much money the residual EU ought to pay for future access to the UK Internal Market.

    2. I think that Roger’s letter was really about the Customs Union, rather than the Internal Market, but I appreciate that they go hand in hand.

  7. Unfortunately for Prof Minford he’s not at LSE. The Establishment would fawn and grovel.

    We could with a chang to GDP as well please, to stop politicians selling bits of Britain to make it sound OK.

    The info in the last letter is a part of what we need for
    ” After Brexit “

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.