Latest from UKIP Daily

Rejoice! Rejoice! Rejoice!

As I write, on the morning of Tuesday March 14th, we know that the Brexit Bill has cleared its final hurdles in the Commons and the Lords, and Theresa May is now in a position to invoke Article 50.

I’ve been campaigning for British independence for twenty years – eighteen in the European parliament – so I hope, Dear Reader, you’ll forgive me a moment of quiet satisfaction.  Mission accomplished.  A seemingly impossible objective realised.  All of us who have engaged in the Brexit campaign can congratulate ourselves on a job well done.  It wouldn’t have happened without UKIP.

Article 50 is simply the starting pistol for 2 years of negotiations, a time when UKIP will be needed more than ever. We’ve all seen the proposals for a £60 billion “divorce settlement”.  The EU seems to base this on EU programmes, for which the UK (inter alia) has voted, which they say we must continue to fund.  I say “balderdash!”. Imagine that last year you were a member of a golf club, and as a member you’d voted for a five-year refurbishment programme.  Then later you resigned. Would you expect to keep paying your subs for five years after you’d quit?  Absurd.

Of course Brussels is panicking about the big drop in income they’ll face after Brexit.  But they’ll just have to cut their coat according to their cloth.

Good marks to Theresa May for her counter-proposal that we should demand £9 billion from the EU as the UK holding in the EIB

There have been several bizarre Brexit proposals going around prior to last night’s votes.  One was that parliament should have a vote on the final deal agreed with the EU.  OK. Let’s think that through. If they voted in favour, well and good. But what is the consequence of a NO vote? Article 50 would have been invoked nearly two years before. The calendar rolls on relentlessly. Article 50 plus two years will arrive in March 2019, and if our parliament voted against the deal, we should leave the EU with no deal at all.

For me, that’s a better outcome than staying in the EU. But it’s likely to be a less good outcome than an agreed deal. Any MP imagining that a NO vote means reversion to the status quo ante had better think again.

The Lords had an even more bizarre idea. They’d have like to be able to send the government back to Brussels and (like Oliver Twist) ask for more.

What would that mean? First, it would probably push negotiations over the two year limit (in theory that can be extended, but only in the unlikely case of unanimity amongst the 28). Second, it would almost certainly result in a firm “NO” from Brussels. We’ve given you our best shot, they’d say. It’s that or nothing. And again we’d be out without a deal.

But third (why can’t those guys in the Lords see this?) it creates a huge incentive for Brussels to offer another minimal, nugatory, Cameron-type non-deal.  That would ensure that the Lords voted for a renegotiation, which would leave the British government snookered.

The people voted for Brexit.  Let’s just get on with it, and stop posturing.

This article was adapted from Roger Helmer’s “Straight Talking” electronic newsletter. If you would like to be added to the mailing list to receive this newsletter, please email roger.helmer@europarl.europa.eu

Print Friendly
Roger Helmer MEP
About Roger Helmer MEP (79 Articles)
Roger Helmer is an East Midlands MEP and UKIP's energy spokesman. His articles appear both here and on his personal blogging site by agreement.

4 Comments on Rejoice! Rejoice! Rejoice!

  1. “a time when UKIP will be needed more than ever”

    Ha, Ha, Ha Bl**dy HA.
    Forgive my hollow mirth, what influence does a near extinct UKIP have on anything Magpie May is going to negotiate?.

    In my opinion there is only one glimmer of hope that is Nigel is still on the case, he is the acknowledged “architect” of obtaining and winning a LEAVE referendum, he can still claim to speak for 17.4 million votes – a rapidly diminishing UKIP never will, particularly now having taken their eye off the ball and gravitated into factional political fighting.

    I agree with “Gary”, there must be no “hooks” remaining in the final agreement that can lead to a bit by bit resumption of our loss of Sovereignty under the present misleading guise of “shared Sovereignty”.
    No No No!
    We want ALL our Control of our borders.
    We want ALL our control of our coastal waters and what swims in them
    We want ALL our control of our Law, of our Legal System and our democratic parliament.
    We want ALL our control of everything which has an ounce of Sovereignty connection.
    Treaties OK, Love Europe OK , Love EU No.No.No.
    Apart from Immigration what was the biggest thing that united the LEAVERS and compelled them to stick two of their proverbials up to that astonishing FEAR campaign – it was the basis of it all.
    DISTRUST of the whole EU and Government Political System who had conspired for 40 odd years to lie,cheat, bully and mislead (some say criminally) into virtual SERFDOM.
    17.4 million people UNITED on June 23rd on a cross party basis to rise up and revolt in a democratic way against these would be Masters and Tyrants who were trampling on the rights we had gained from Magna Carta and its subsequent derivations.

    Come on UKIP “The only way is Nigel” join with him to complete the job!.
    What`s the use in haring after the factional vote locally if we are losing the real purpose that UKIP was formed for and that is to complete the job of full INDEPENDENCE.
    Oh by the way.
    PAP – Patriotic Agenda Party.
    That to me spells “pap” do you want to see that plastered across all the news boards?
    They`ll have to come up with another name.
    If they must use it how
    PAM – Patriotic Agenda Movement
    I also agree tackling Islamic intellectual and positional community occupation by unremarked Sharia Law and its derivations is highly necessary and full control of our borders is a pre-requisite to that highly necessary task.

  2. Mission accomplished?

    Not by a long way; we are still in the EU and a clean exit not guaranteed. We still have a fight on our hands but should also be preparing for the next one – Islamisation. That fight requires our unconditional exit from the EU and proper border control for a start, something which May will continue to make excuses about.

  3. Gary,

    Absolutely. Is that another omission in UKIP policy now? Who would know if it were? Certainly no-one visiting the website. May’s delays have allowed all these problems; she is not to be trusted.

  4. “Theresa May is now in a position to invoke Article 50.”

    Theresa May was in a position to invoke Article 50 on 13th July 2016. She has been quite happy to play along as the Remainiacs regrouped and mounted spurious challenges in their desperation to delay, disrupt and ultimately deny Brexit. Theresa May could have avoided the costly shambles of the past 9 months. She chose not to.

    “For me, that’s a better outcome than staying in the EU. But it’s likely to be a less good outcome than an agreed deal.”

    Any agreed deal, by definition, will have stuff in it that’s good for the EU. Anything that’s good for the EU, in the context of negotiations to return powers to the UK, is bad for the UK. Any such deal will have been negotiated between arch Remainers in Parliament and the Civil Service and their rabid Europhile counterparts in Brussels. It will water down Brexit as far as they think they can get away with, in return for “concessions” from the EU, perhaps on travel, expats rights, free trade. Any deal is therefore a trap, and will most likely leave at least a toe dipped in the EU swamp, enabling us to be sucked back in bit by bit.

    No “deal” is required. We simply leave. Preferably with a Free Trade Agreement to continue current tariff-free trade, but if necessary without one.

    “But third (why can’t those guys in the Lords see this?) it creates a huge incentive for Brussels to offer another minimal, nugatory, Cameron-type non-deal.”

    I’m afraid the Lords see this all too clearly. Never forget that they are operating in the EU’s best interest, not the UK’s.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*