Today’s first letter comes from our reader Keith Roberts who writes about issues many other members like him have been thinking about:

Sir,

I joined UKIP in 2004 with no previous interest in politics. After many difficulties with local members, we finally got a Swansea branch up and running. Throughout the intervening years, we have had people join us who wished to plough their own furrow, no respecters of committee, and finally going back to the political party they originally came from.

Reading of those who ask what UKIP stands for, now that Brexit has come about. Also those councillors who have left UKIP and become independent, as they don’t see a future. I see a future, and here’s my view:   

Let’s look at the political scene in the UK at present.  We have the two main parties, Tories who are split down the middle on all issues, the Labour party (Reds) who are moving further left all the time. The SNP (Reds) in Scotland, with a thistle in their tam-o-shanter. The Lib-Dems, Reds with APPEASEMENT written on their foreheads. The Plaid Cymru party (my territory), Reds with a daffodil on their their lapel. The Greens, Reds with a windmill on their heads.

So what political party have the British people got to vote for, and who will represent their views? UKIP is the only Centre Right party, who tell the truth and who will honestly represent all voters.

I say to all those who wish to disrupt the party, who wish to impose their views above all else, and cannot accept democratic party decisions, then get out. You have a choice of several other parties, see above, and they will surely welcome ex-UKIP members with open arms, as the Reds see us as their real enemy.

Respectfully, Keith Roberts

Our correspondent Roger Arthur has sent us these observations on Brexit and the EU:

Sir,

On a recent BBC Politics programme, Michael Portillo suggested to Andrew Neil that the Referendum may not have been needed – because the UK has an opt-out from the Eurozone. But as we know the EU can shift the goalposts, leaving the UK having something imposed on it that it did not sign up to.

For example, EU officials abandoned Article 125 (no bailouts) demanding £850m in bailout money – after Cameron and Osborne thought they had an agreement that (being outside of the common currency) the UK should not contribute to Eurozone bailouts.

The Lisbon Treaty had already removed many Parliamentary vetoes, while introducing the “self amendment” concept of Treaties (Article 48) thereby allowing the EU to extend or amend Treaties, without seeking approval from nation states.

(Mr Cameron’s 2011 Referendum Lock Act was too late to reverse that and it is surprising that he failed to see that.)

It is also instructive that neither the 5 President’s Reports, nor Mr Junker’s recent speech, allows any place for national currencies in the long term, but does expect all member states to be in the Eurozone by 2025. Clearly Fiscal Union will not be viable, without a common currency.

The EU was never going to let the UK get in the way of their agenda. So Mr Portillo, we are on the wrong train and the Referendum was in fact the only way to get off it, before it reaches its final destination – ie Fiscal, Political and Military Union. Even now, we may have to press the Emergency Stop.

Respectfully, Roger J. Arthur

We have been asked to publish the following letter from our contributor Toby Micklethwait. This letter is the end result of online negotiations in pursuance of a disciplinary action which had been initiated against Toby Micklethwait on the 30th of August 2017. The Party was represented by Mr Oakley (General Secretary):

Dear UKIP Daily,

On 27 August 2017 an Open Letter to Kippers, written by me, was published in UKIP Daily. It was critical of the party on a number of matters and I stand by most of it. However I do not stand by any implication for the integrity of Lexdrum House staff.

I had expressed doubt about the membership figures. Just as the party’s finances are independently audited I believe the credibility of membership figures would also benefit from an independent audit.

But I did not express it quite like that and overlooked a potential implication for Lexdrum House staff in speculating as to how the figures may go awry. I have apologised to them in the following words:

“I very much regret that Mr David Challice and the other members of staff at Head Office were offended by my article in UKIP Daily which I accept was loosely worded. I truly did not intend any slur on him personally or on his colleagues at Lexdrum House and I wish to unreservedly apologise for questioning their professional integrity.

Lexdrum House staff are unsung heroes of the party and we should all be grateful for their efforts. I did not have them in mind at all when writing my article. I should have been clear about that and regret that I was not.”

and they have kindly accepted my apology.

Regards, Toby Micklethwait

Finally, a letter from our reader Mr King, on the issue of EU subsidies for the BBC:

Sir,

According to this link (article in the Spectator) an “FoI response confirms that BBC staff applied for, and accepted, about £3 million of EU funds between April 2011 and November 2013, most of which has been spent on unspecified ‘research and development’ projects, with the remaining £1 million spent on programming.”

I can’t find evidence that such funding was stopped on the run up to the Referendum. If not, then we were faced with a taxpayer funded organisation, which was supposed to be impartial, brainwashing us with our money.

Respectfully, King

Print Friendly, PDF & Email