Latest from UKIP Daily

UKIP and a Second EU Referendum

I was shocked and appalled, like most UKIPPERs, that Nigel Farage conceded that a second EU Referendum could be held. He made his comments on the Wright Stuff daytime TV show on January 11th 2018, and it caused such a backlash that he spent the rest of the day backtracking on what he had said.

 

What he actually said on the TV show was that, “Maybe, just maybe, we should have a second Referendum”. Later Nigel qualified that to explain that he does not want a second referendum but that it might happen anyway, and we need to be prepared.

 

He has been in this business a long time, he would have known how the media would seize on this statement. However he tries to qualify what he said, the damage is done.  The Remainers will now throw his statement back in the faces of every Leaver who appears in the media – “But even Nigel Farage said there should be a second referendum”!  Just like the idiotic ‘£350 million for the NHS’ on the side of the Vote Leave bus which is still thrown back at us, even though we never said it.

 

I don’t often agree with David Cameron but I did agree with what he said in his Chatham House speech just before the Referendum:

 

“It will be your decision whether to remain in the EU on the basis of the reforms we secure or whether we leave. Your decision, nobody else’s’: not politicians, not Parliament, not lobby groups, not mine. Just you, the British people will decide.

“And it will be the final decision. To those who suggest that a decision in the Referendum to leave will merely produce another stronger renegotiation and a second Referendum in which Britain could stay, I say, think again.

“The renegotiation is happening right now and the Referendum that follows will be a once in a generation choice, an in or out Referendum. When the British people speak their voice will be respected not ignored. If we vote to leave then we will leave, there will not be another renegotiation and another Referendum.”

 

Having been armed with David Cameron’s unequivocal position on the legitimacy of the Referendum we are now saddled with Nigel Farage’s equivocation.

 

Just as I predicted, the outcome of the Leave vote has been subjected to a relentless campaign by the Remainers and our political class to prevent the Leave decision being implemented. UKIP’s policy since the Referendum has been to make the Government uphold the result and see it implemented. To do that UKIP needs to be an electoral threat once again.

 

Just so that everyone knows: Nigel Farage did not discuss his suggestion of a second Referendum with anyone before making it: not the Leader, not the MEPs, or even the UKIP or EFDD press officers. He does not speak for UKIP. He was speaking entirely for himself.

 

UKIP’s task, now made that much more difficult, is to demand a complete and unencumbered exit from the EU, and for the historic vote of 26th June 2016 to be implemented.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
About Gerard Batten MEP (39 Articles)
Gerard Batten in a UKIP MEP representing London. He is also UKIP's Spokesman for Brexit.

22 Comments on UKIP and a Second EU Referendum

  1. https://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b09mjyl3/the-papers-13012018 … Bonnie Greer at 4′ 10″ lets establishment cat out of bag. 2nd Ref to offer 3 choices: Exit without deal, Exit accepting deal or Remain – split Brexit vote even if increased would likely lose to Remain. Highest voter turnout ever voted BREXIT so DO IT NOW PM, and stop being the Feeble Appeaser Re-May-n Theresa PM!

  2. Fully agree with the sentiments expressed by Gerard Batten.

    Not at all helpful Nigel

  3. I don’t know what corpud juris means. But it’s worth mentioning that if someone denounces you for some infringement you can be put into prison and there you’ll rot until you can get help, or the police manage to dig up some clarity, or the police decide it’s not provable or whatever.

    Really you do not want to play.

    This is a system dreamed up by Napolean to least hinder his troops.

  4. In complete agreement with Gerard Batten with the proviso that we do not take down our own there are plenty waiting to do just that.
    For my money a new leader is required ASAP regardless of what those outside of the party and some inside think.
    Will Gerard stand if asked keeping in mind D Kurten was third in the leadership elections.
    Whilst the lab/lib/con coalition party are trying their damnedest to convert these Isles to ashes, UKIP should be rising from them.

    • For what it’s worth, my opinion is that Nigel Farage has been subjected to some sort of personal pressure or threats to push him into making this disastrous statement. Plus I think the Bolton affair was orchestrated by our opponents in order to destroy UKIP and Brexit once and for all. They want to pull the wool over people’s eyes. We can’t let them win.

  5. Totally agree with Gerard Batten.
    By the way I think we should never stop reminding voters about one of the rude shocks we’d all get if (God forbid) we ended up remaining: the EU’s Corpus Juris legal system would be rolled out over all areas of law in UK.

    • Of course it would.

      A vote to Remain would be taken as a total acceptance by the British people of the entire EU project, hook, line and sinker.

      So Corpus Juris would indeed be rolled out. And, 800 years after Magna Carta, that great charter of our liberties would be torn up, and it would be Bye-bye to Habeas Corpus, Trial by Jury, No Double Jeopardy, and Hello to the fearsome European Public Prosecutor with power to arrest anyone on mere suspicion with no obligation to produce any evidence for many long months, backed by the lethally-armed, paramilitary European Gendarmerie Force on our streets. How many people know that the Spanish component of the EGF is the Guardia Civil who baton-charged and fired rubber bullets into the crowds of Catalonians when they tried to vote in their independence referendum? We would see those very same fellows on our High Streets, with legal enforcement powers over us.

      And have no doubt, in a second referendum the Remain side would win, not least because the alternative given would be to Leave, but on Barnier’s “rotten” terms, as Nigel himself put it. Both alternatives would be equally repulsive to any British patriot. The remoaners would all vote to Remain, but most Brexiteers would not have the stomach to vote for Barnier’s miserable “deal”. It would be a case of Heads they win, Tails we lose.

      We must stand firm and reject any calls for a second referendum. Nigel should have thought this through before speaking so thoughtlessly on Thursday. It pains me to say this, for I have admired him enormously, but now he has shot himself (and us) in the foot.

  6. Who does speak for us? I’d like to think it was Gerard Batten himself but he too ignores what we think. At the Bournemouth conference we debated whether to have a regionalised NEC and a near full hall democratically rejected the idea. Yet, Batten, ignoring us, or taking no interest in our views like the rest of the central party, suggests an NEC of “regional activists”. (That assumes of course that there are any left).

  7. I totally agree with Gerrard.

    I have posted these comments elsewhere on UKIP Daily but I repeat them here, as they may not be seen by all those reading Gerrard’s excellent article:

    Can people not see that this has opened the door to the EU’s favourite tactic of repeating referenda until they get the answer they want? Even if we were to win again we would gain nothing, as the traitors would not give up, and we would have been obliged to repeat the process of leaflets, street stalls etc. which absorbed so much effort in 2016. There is also every danger that people will be so fed up with the debate that, even if they support Brexit, they might just stay at home.

    I know a great many people think that Nigel can do no wrong but this must call his judgement into question. I knew him when he was just another member of the NEC and he is not the originator of the anti EU cause, not is he alone responsible for the progress we have made, now being threatened by this utterly reckless statement

    Leavers should consider the following:

    1. Those who financed the Leave campaign have been attacked by HMRC and subjected to demands for payments. They therefore might not be so willing to pay next time

    2. In 2016 our enemies thought that they were going to win easily so did not pull out all the stops. Next time the full weight of the money and media power controlled by them would be unleashed

    3. We do not have so many active volunteers that we could expect to cover the electorate in the way we did before and we would face thousands of left wing activists on the streets

    4. We were the revolutionaries, seeking to overthrow the status quo. Next time we would be regarded as allied to those in government who pretend to support Brexit, like May

    5. If it was not such a disastrous idea for our side why would leading Remainers be so supportive of the proposal

    I tell you now that, if a second referendum were to be held before Brexit, we would lose, not because we are wrong, but because of the reasons given above.

    Those who ask for one should be told that they can have one after ten years free of the EU, by which time the people would have had a chance to see how freedom was working. That one we would win.

  8. I commend Alan Wheatley’s remarks below. He is one, of an apparent minority, who seems to have listened properly to what Nigel has actually said, and then given consideration to the logic of his reasoning, before giving a comment.

    I also agree with Arron Banks’ opinion that Nigel knew exactly what he was doing and, as usual, is ‘ahead of the curve’ on this.

    • Hi Howard – I hate to tell you, but it doesn’t matter what Nigel actually said. Only what he appears to have said – what he was reported to have said. As evidenced, as Gerard pointed out, by the Leave NHS Bus business.
      Nigel, as a pro, should have known that. He has pulled the rug from under our feet.
      It is pointless to deny it – or try to get round it.
      There will now, I’m sure, be a second referendum at some point – and we will have no control of the question asked. After all, the ‘self-styled Mr. Brexit said there would be another referendum didn’t he? And whether we would win or not I honestly don’t know, because many people would probably say what’s the point, we voted last time and look where it got us. All that grief, all that family feuding, all that bile from neighbors, and we’re no better off.
      Thanks to – not what Nigel ‘actually’ said but what Nigel was perceived to have said – we haven’t got a leg to stand on.

  9. Nigel is swimming in the MSM now, albeit ill-fittingly. This second referendum stunt has been cooked up, probably, by Farage and LBC. Never trust the MSM for a sensible, honest discussion on any subject. Farage should have remained UKIP leader and applied pressure on the Tories at the ballot box for a harder Brexit.

  10. Tarnished by successive leadership elections, tarnished to a greater degree by the current leader and now a final topcoat of tarnish applied by Nigel. All that on top of the actions of the PTB which give one no confidence.

    Has UKIP still a future or must we look elsewhere?

  11. Sadly, Nigel appears to be having a ‘BrainFreeze’ week : first he gives support to the ludicrous ‘Leader’; then he comes out with this nonsense which amounts to ‘giving comfort to the enemy’.

    But Gerard : can you please make unequivocally clear : Are you a Candidate for the Leadership following the imminent ( as I believe must be the case ) resignation of the current incumbent ?

  12. Well said. Out now. We voted to leave not make deals. Debate about a 2nd referendum plays into the remoaners hands by allowing them space to change the terms. We voted to leave not soft brexit or anything else. Anything else is just lies and deceit. Nigel should adopt Cameron’s speech above to preface everything he says in every interview. The message must be we voted to leave and we trusted the Prime minister to deliver. Democracy matters.

  13. I would be interested to hear suggestions as to who has, or more pertinently will, make a more significant contribution to UKIP’s political impact than Nigel Farage. In the lack of any credible such person it would be sensible to refrain from unwise criticism of the best asset we have.

    Part of our (UKIP Members) problem is that unless you watched the Wright Stuff and can correctly recall what was actually said, it is not safe to criticise on the basis of a selective quote, headlines and comment. Certainly the quote is at odds with what I heard Nigel say on his LBC show later in the day.

    On LBC Nigel made a significant point ignored by the Nigel bashing criticisms. That is that no matter what we may want we may find ourselves having to face second referendum as a consequence of votes passed in Parliament resulting from pressure by a Remoaners majority (particularly in the Lords) and the “Establishment”.

    Given this is a realistic possibility, Nigel put forward a sensible and pragmatic approach: rather than be confronted with an unexpected second referendum with little time to prepare to fight another referendum campaign, better to start preparing now. Well prepared for a second referendum the likely result will be a significantly increased majority for LEAVE, and the appeal of that is to put an end to Remoaners influence for a generation. So out of bad can come some good, which, if you have go through the aggravation, is something to warm to.

    And in any event, rather than rely on a Theresa May led government to deliver the BREXIT we voted for, a revitalised LEAVE campaign is equally needed to stop a LINO Brexit.

  14. I have to say at this point I do agree with Gerard. Might I just add this:

    In all the furore about Nigel’s apparent volte-face over the second referendum issue, one question appears to have been overlooked.

    Neither Nigel nor anyone else has told us what the second referendum question will be.

    We know now that there will be three options on the table, NOT two, and a referendum by its nature can only offer two:

    – Barnier will make us a rotten offer (as he told Nigel himself when they met on Monday) on which to leave;

    – we could remain in the EU cancelling our art. 50 notice to withdraw;

    – we could “crash out” on WTO terms.

    Now what if our remoaner Parliament passes a bill for a referendum on

    – Either Remain as EU members,
    – Or Leave by accepting Barnier’s rotten offer?

    Nigel has given no answer to that. Indeed he seemed dismissive of the possibility of us crashing out on WTO terms – in his last LBC show, he said this Parliament would not accept that.
    However it would be utterly absurd for UKIP and the Leave side to campaign for us to leave on Barnier’s rotten terms.

    If it gets to this point they will have us cornered, in check-mate. Didn’t Nigel think of that?

  15. I completely agree with you Gerard, this was a big mistake by Nigel he must have known that the media and remainers would sieze upon his remarks. I saw ‘Sir’ Nick Clegg interviewed saying he agreed with Nigel.

    Thanks for quoting David Cameron’s comments from his Chatham House speech this is exactly what we need to keep bringing to the fore. Whilst I agee with your final paragraph we must distance ourselves from Nigel’s comments and say that we do not agree with him.

  16. Coming up the line is House of Commons Debate ( 9 days time ) on immediate departure from EU.

    Letters to your MPs NOW please.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published.


*