Brexit and Chequers (but not – yet – the heatwave!) are still the main issues for our readers and is reflected reflected in the following letters. Today’s first letter is from David Challice, UKIP Head Office manager:


The Secret Plan for Brexit is now clear to everyone.  Chequers unveiled it in all its dirty glory.

In 2016 David Davis was appointed Brexit Negotiator in a new “leaving the EU” department.  But it was a Potemkin Village, a sham, built of clapboard and nails, smelling of slapped-on paint, hastily erected to fool the world.

The real Brexit Plan was being devised in secret by civil servant, Olly Robbins.

The Chequers Deal was shown to (and cleared by) Angela Merkel a few days earlier.  David Davis and his deputy, Steve Baker, only got to see it at Chequers, where they realised that May had been stringing them along for the last two years.  So they resigned.

Dominic Raab replaced David Davis.  But when he moved into his new office he found half the staff had already been sacked by Olly Robbins in a coup of Stalinist audacity.

And now the coup-de-grace, the whipped cream on the top, delivered with a flourish.   The Prime Minister has just announced that her office (read Olly Robbins’) will now be handling Brexit. Dominic Raab will be left to hoover the carpet, empty the ashtrays and generally look like he’s busy. This is the final betrayal of Brexit.

Mr Raab is probably feeling humiliated and who can blame him? But Mrs May has clearly lost touch with reality. She is now like Margaret Thatcher with the Poll Tax, ignoring advice and closing her ears to revolt in the Tory Shires.

Respectfully, David Challice, UKIP Head Office Manager

Btw, Mr Dominic Raab has now acquired a nickname on the internet : ‘Rabbit’. Don’t blame me, I’m only quoting … ! The next letter comes from our correspondent Patricia Ward:


Given that the UK does the majority of its international trade in accordance with World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules, going forwards the UK can apply those rules to the smaller amount of trade it currently does with the EU, and save the EU-demanded £39 billion ransom for no longer being held hostage.

According to leading outside-the-box thinking economists (e.g. here), applying WTO rules to trade with the EU, instead of EU self-serving rules, would also cover rights regarding, for example, air travel.  

Instead of seeking an unfair to the UK taxpayer so-called free trade deal with the EU, which sells far more to us than vice versa, applying WTO rules would benefit the UK(see here).

Following WTO rules would mean the UK and EU can only apply their smallest tariffs. The impact on UK firms can be mitigated by the UK government redistributing new tariff revenue as well as the circa £14 billion a year UK taxpayers currently give the EU (see here).

UK taxpayers should not be compensating the EU for the privilege of its selling more to the UK than vice versa. Nor should they be paying the EU for employing and providing benefits for EU citizens who send money to the EU, while UK pensioners living on the continent spend their pensions in the EU instead of in the UK. By replacing free movement of labour from the EU with a universally applied work permit system, UK taxpayers will be saved from subsidising the EU’s unemployed. The UK will also be incentivised to better train and employ its own unemployed and under-employed.

When no longer having to support uncompetitive EU producers, the UK can reduce the cost of non-EU imported shopping-basket items by reducing tariffs. WTO principles could make UK households better off, while giving the UK Treasury billions a year more to spend on public services.

Respectfully, Patricia Ward, UKIP Putney

The last letter today is from our reader Keith Taylor, quoting extensively from an article in the DT of 2009 (link at the end of the letter).  It’s a very interesting trip back down Memory Lane in regard to immigration:


In 1979 Lady Thatcher said that there were already too many people coming into Britain, as an article in the DT 30 years later reports (link below). The prime minister, who had publicly said that she sympathised with fears that Britain was being “swamped” by immigrant cultures, thought it was “quite wrong” for immigrants to get council houses ahead of “white citizens”:

“Lord Carrington, who had visited refugee camps in Hong Kong where some of the boat people were being held, gave a “vivid account” of the conditions there, the minutes show. He suggested that Britain take 10,000 of them over two years. Failure to take a significant number would lead to a “damaging reaction” at home and abroad, he said, and anything less than 10,000 would be “difficult to sustain” on the world stage. But Lady Thatcher said that there were already too many people coming into Britain, according to the minutes.

She said that “with some exceptions there had been no humanitarian case for accepting 1.5 million immigrants from south Asia and elsewhere. It was essential to draw a line somewhere”.

Mr Whitelaw entered the debate, suggesting to the prime minister that refugees were a different matter to immigrants in general.

He said that according to letters he had received, opinion favoured the accepting of more of the Vietnamese refugees.

Lady Thatcher responded that “in her view all those who wrote letters in this sense should be invited to accept one into their homes,” the minutes disclose.

“She thought it quite wrong that immigrants should be given council housing whereas white citizens were not.”

Lady Thatcher asked what the implications of such a move could be given that an exodus of the white population from Rhodesia – now Zimbabwe – was expected once majority rule was established.

She made clear, however, that she had “less objection to refugees such as Rhodesians, Poles and Hungarians, since they could more easily be assimilated into British society”.

The meeting was held about 18 months after Lady Thatcher made comments in a television interview that came to be seen as a watershed in mainstream politicians’ handling of race and immigration.”

People are really rather afraid that this country might be rather swamped by people with a different culture,” she told World In Action. If we do not want people to go to extremes we ourselves must talk about this problem and we must show that we are prepared to deal with it,” she added. “We are not in politics to ignore people’s worries. We are in politics to deal with them.”

Quoted extensively from this article.

Respectfully, Keith Taylor, UKIP Member


Print Friendly, PDF & Email