Today’s letters are very diverse, covering a number of issues which are of abiding interest, certainly to us Kippers if not the MSM and Westminster. The first letter is from Mike Hookem MEP, Deputy Leader of UKIP:

Sir,

It has been reported that Ms May and the Government has reached a deal on the so-called Brexit ‘divorce bill’. The £55bn reported cost is an absolute outrage.

This is yet another capitulation by our weak and feeble Prime Minister, and makes the UK nothing more than a EU surrender monkey in view of the DT’s report that a deal over the EU ‘divorce bill’ had been reached with EU official last week, following “intense back-channel discussions.”!

The EU has essentially held us to ransom over the ‘divorce bill’, and a stronger Prime Minister would have told them to get stuffed.

Yet, here we are again capitulating to EU demands. Last week it was the continued supremacy of the ECJ over British Courts. This week it’s paying nearly the full £60bn demanded by Jean Claude Juncker.

Paying nearly £60bn of taxpayers’ money in the vague hope the EU will allow the UK some kind trade deal is foolhardy in the extreme! Now that we have capitulated on the divorce bill, I’m pretty sure EU negotiators will expect us to roll over and capitulate on every demand they make during the next phase of the negotiation.

So much for Theresa May saying the ball was in the EU’s court. More like game set and match EU! If the Prime Minister had anything about her, she would have walked away from talks and told the EU to come back when they could be reasonable.

Instead, we can expect yet more of the same in the forthcoming trade discussions.

Respectfully, Mike Hookem MEP

Next, a letter from our contributor Hugo Jenks who asked us to publish his email as the subject of that email is important:

Sir,

I have written the email below to several UKIP members, supporters, and ex-members.  Although my email has generated a lively correspondence, as yet there does not seem to be a clear understanding of the purpose for the party beyond Brexit.  Please add your thoughts and comments!

My email:

“Dear all,

Assuming that we get some sort of Brexit implemented within the next year and a half, can anybody explain to me the purpose of UKIP beyond that event?

Yes, we might gripe that it is not full Brexit, or some aspect is not what we were intending. However we would have substantially weakened the grip of Brussels upon us.

Of course if they entirely ignore the referendum result, then there will again be a real purpose for UKIP.

The party seems unwilling to tackle the next major issue, which is Islam and its associated evils. Fair enough, that is a policy choice of those at the top. Now that For Britain is up and running, those patriots who are concerned about Islam can join Anne Marie and tackle that issue. What then remains within the remit of UKIP? Brexit will have been completed (however imperfectly). The Islam threat is being studiously ignored by Henry Bolton. Will UKIP have any purpose at that point, in about a year and a half?

Just asking.”

Respectfully, Hugo Jenks

Our correspondent Roger Arthur sent us the following letter:

Sir,

according to DT Business 23/11/17 the OBR expects that increased employment will mean £billions less in government borrowing.

But a TUC survey found that 80% of new jobs created since 2013 were paid at less than £7.95 per hour.  There seems not to be much tax potential there.

Also since many will involve part time working with in-work benefits, it is doubtful if they will make much contribution to government coffers, or in reducing the Deficit. Surely the OBR can see that, or are they still using an old economic model?

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

Finally, a letter from our correspondent Felicia Catto:

Sir,

I like reading the online papers first thing in the morning. There are always surprises, especially when observing which of our papers reports what, and compares this to reports in online blogs. Today, M Barnier’s insinuation – some call it outrageous slurs – that we 17 million Brits voted for Brexit because we didn’t want to fight ISIS surely should have had all our papers in uproar. Instead, only the Guardian and the Daily Mail have reported on this. And some blogs. Why is that? Are the chief editors trying to keep our tempers calm and hope none of us will attack nice M Barnier for fear of scuppering Ms May’s shaky ‘negotiations’?

I don’t understand it.

And nobody in our government seems to even twitch. Breitbart London has however reported on it (here) and quotes Mike Hookem MEP at length.

Perhaps this is yet another case of ‘it didn’t happen because it wasn’t on the BBC and in The Times’, and if it didn’t happen then we don’t need to become upset, right?

Respectfully, Felicia Catto