Below we publish the letters to UKIP Daily addressing Brexit. The many letters we received about UKIP, Gerard Batten, Tommy Robinson and the letters by those who have resigned their elected position in UKIP will be published on Monday for the simple reason that we do not want to inflame the already incendiary situation in our Party.
The first of the Brexit letters is from our contributor Alan Wheatley:
It occurs to me that as Parliament had to pass a vote agreeing to the submission to the EU of Article 50, it surely follows that Parliament would have to pass a vote agreeing to the UK withdrawing Article 50. So just because the ECJ says the UK can does not mean the Government can.
Respectfully, Alan Wheatley
Our correspondent Mr King sent in this brief letter, an observation about the Amendment to Ms May’s WA, proposed by Dominic Grieve MP:
To avoid any possible misunderstanding about his purpose, perhaps Dominic Grieve should propose an unambiguous question for the next referendum.
“Do you want to stay, or remain, in the E.U.?”
Enter an X against one option only.
Respectfully, Mr King
Our reader Christina Brooks sent us her letter which is also in regard to a Second Referendum:
Having another referendum would be very unfair for those who voted leave the EU because a lot of the older people who probably voted to leave will now have died and many 16 years old who couldn’t vote in 2016 – can vote now so would vote probably to stay so that is unfair on the original vote and would set a bad precedent in other words if people voted in a new prime minister I didn’t like can I have another vote – NO!!!!!
Respectfully, Christina Brooks
Our correspondent Septimus Octavius makes the following points in his letter about leaving the EU, putting the fearmongering arguments into perspective:
Just about everyone in the media or politics says that exiting the EU without a deal would be catastrophic, but nobody ever seeks to adduce any evidence for this. It is talked of a “cliff edge”, something that one can fall off to his or her death, but again with absolutely no sort of reasoning or justification to back this up.
The actual facts paint a very different picture; this is what happens on exit day in the absence of a Withdrawal Agreement:
We save £39 billion.
We exit on WTO terms which require a few technical tweaks to deal with.
We avoid the trap laid by Dominic Grieve in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018.
We will be free to negotiate anything we want, with whomever we want, including the EU. This critically important point seems to be lost on everyone, but it kills stone dead anything the EU has offered so far.
NB: there will never be a hard border in Ireland because nobody is going to build one.
Respectfully, Septimus Octavius
Finally, our contributor and correspondent Roger Arthur gives a trenchant reply to a Remainer question:
Someone on Quora asked how many people really voted to leave. My brief response is this:
That is academic, because the most important question has never been asked, ie:
“Do you want to remain in the EU as it drives towards ever closer Fiscal, Political and Military union?”
So why not hold a referendum on that because E.U. rulers have told us many times that the era of your nation state will be over if we remain in the EU? Heath failed to ask that question and took us into the EEC without a referendum, saying:
“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe (Common Market) we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. These fears, I need hardly say, are completely unjustified.”
In 1975 Wilson also failed to raise that key question, asking “Do you want to remain in a Common Market.”
In 2016 Cameron allowed us to vote on in/out, without telling us that if we voted to remain, there were no binding treaty changes which would stop the E.U. from ratcheting us into ever closer union.
So we have been deceived by spin and deception for too long and people are far wiser now, than ever before. Someone is going to have to serve time before too long.
Respectfully, Roger Arthur