Today’s first letter is from our contributor Mr Bav. It’s on “the Bookmarks Incident” and is a warning of the coming MSM storm against UKIP which sadly has been provoked by some Kippers and which has been taken up by the Left on social media and in the London MSM.
Letter withdrawn by the author
in order not to create an unnecessary legal issue.
The rest of today’s letters reflect the ongoing dissatisfaction with the way the Government and MSM are dealing with or addressing Brexit. The next letter is from our correspondent Septimus Octavius who points out a trap laid by Remainers:
Sir,
The news report published by the Daily Telegraph on Sunday, claiming that a “no deal Brexit” would be illegal under EU law is pure silly season nonsense. Nowhere in Article 50 is there any requirement for reasonableness! On the contrary, Article 50 is crystal clear about what happens: the UK is released from the Treaties of the EU at one of two moments. The earlier such moment is that at which a Withdrawal Agreement comes into effect at any moment before 11.00 p.m. UK time on 29 March 2019; the later is that time if no such Withdrawal Agreement has come into effect before that time. It is a beautifully binary law, incapable of any misunderstanding. A “no deal Brexit” is therefore entirely lawful.
A more critical legal point, of course, concerns the trap laid, probably by Dominic Grieve, in the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018. It will be recalled that if a Withdrawal Agreement DOES come into effect before that time, the ECA 1972 will immediately reinstate all the Treaties of the EU straight back into UK law! There are only two ways this trap can be avoided, the first one being a “no deal Brexit” and the second being a Withdrawal Agreement expressed in its own terms to come into effect at 11.00 p.m. UK time on 29 March 2019. In either of these cases the repeal of the ECA 1972 and the Release from the Treaties happen at the same instant, and the UK escapes by the skin of its teeth.
Respectfully, Septimus Octavius
Next, our reader Cllr Ivor Jones sent us this letter which speaks for itself:
SIr,
Here’s one of my latest ‘outpourings’ to the press. Perhaps it might serve to inspire other members to put pen to paper:
“Dear ,
Mrs May, (the professional pedestrian currently wandering around Italy) appears to be hopelessly in thrall to her (unelected) pro-Brussels advisor.
That Referendum result, as in any election, was the sum of each individual’s decision on where to place their X. That one mark represents a great many things to every voter in that booth. In the case of Brexit, and before considering anything else, the basic question is simply “Do you wish to be ruled by an unelected, unaccountable, corrupt bureaucracy based in Brussels?” Yes or no. That has to be the fundamental starting point, and everything else stems from there. Anyone in any doubt, especially in view of those oafish tactics as demonstrated by Mr Juncker and his chums, must be appalled by the contemptuous attitude and undisguised malice clearly shown by those people towards all of us.
Shamefully, those same people are enthusiastically aided and abetted by certain MPs and members of that other unelected, unaccountable, corrupt plutocracy, many of whom are handsomely bought and paid for by the EU.
Their behaviour is at best grotesquely unpatriotic. At worst it is tantamount to high treason.
Have they really any idea of the implications of the Lisbon Treaty, the Treaty of Rome, or of the ‘Acquis Communautaire’? Did John Major and those other Maastricht-debaters actually read and understand the ramifications thereof? If so, they certainly didn’t want us to know about them.
This country is now in a most parlous state due to indecision, duplicity, incompetence and treachery. We have to send an urgent powerful message to our so-called ‘negotiators’ that they show some true pride, purpose, patriotism and passion, or face the serious consequences. They must get on with it and deliver the unambiguous result for which we voted in 2016. Yours faithfully etc “
Respectfully, Ivor Jones, UKIP Councillor, Minehead Central
In today’s last letter, our contributor Julian Flood proposes that we must take back the language of “Brexit”:
Sir,
If we command the vocabulary we control the thought.
I doubt if Orwell said that, but the sentiment is his. When a topic occurs in the brain it brings with it associated words that shape how that topic is processed. Take, for example, Brexit. In the MSM, on the BBC, much of the Remainder commentary has already colonised the way Brexit is described — ‘hard’, ‘crash-out’, ‘cliff edge’ etc. This colonisation of thought processes must be resisted.
Let’s not have ‘hard’ Brexit. That sounds ugly, scary, painful. Let’s have ‘clean’ Brexit, that sounds pure, washed, desirable. Let’s not use the phrase ‘legal oversight by ECJ’, let’s talk of the unpleasant reality which is ‘interference in our legal system by unelected
foreign bureaucrats’. No ‘common rule book’, speak the reality of ‘dictats to our industry by foreign competitors’.
I’m sure your readers can come up with other examples.
Respectfully, Julian Flood
I’m sorry, but I’m having a Groundhog Day moment reading the last few postings on this thread.
Have we been here before????
It’s like deja vue all over again.
Have we been here before????
Re: Julian Flood’s letter I completely agree. The vast majority of the mainstream media always seem to present Brexit in negative terms, or to paraphrase the Hitch-hikers Guide To The Galaxy, “a very bad thing”. Likewise the concept of “populism” is also presented somehow as being “a very bad thing”. Dictionary definitions of the word ‘populism’: support for the concerns of ordinary people. “it is clear that your populism identifies with the folks on the bottom of the ladder” the quality of appealing to or being aimed at ordinary people. “art museums did not gain bigger audiences through a new… Read more »
I`ve always wonder how the word “gay” came to be traduced.
Was it that all folk of a certain sexual proclivity were of such a miserable disposition; they needed to cheer themselves up by assuming a new image?
It’s very unfortunate for those of us who were given the name Gaye before it became synonymous with homosexuality.
My daughter was christened “Joanne Lesley”. Several years later I noticed on an application form which she had completed that her name had changed to ‘Joanne Peta’. Curious at the unilateral change she replied, “Dad, you have no idea of the mocking taunts that I had to endure from friends at school with a 2nd name of ‘Lesley’. Also, in my home village there were 2 pubs that were opposite each other; one was ‘The George’, the other ‘The Eliot Arms’. My wife named our son Eliot but friends suggested that that resulted from the toss of a coin. I… Read more »
I believe it came from Good As You, tho’ this may just be an urban myth
Newspeak: Orwell said similar: http://orwell.ru/library/novels/1984/english/en_app
“The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words.”
Dear All,
A word of caution:
As someone who has served on NEC disciplinary panels, may I politely remind ‘Kippers reading this of the following?
“AA.6.3 Party members shall refrain from commenting on cases in Party meetings or in public while disciplinary proceedings are pending. The Disciplinary Panel may invoke disciplinary proceedings against any member it considers to have breached this requirement.”
Does that mean we have a reporting restriction?
That would be ironic considering the hoo haa regarding the Tommy Robinson case and the ‘freedom of speech’ argument.
However, bearing in mind the regulation, which I was blissfully unaware of and which is not clear with regards to online activity, I will, in the meantime, comply with the spirit of AA.6.3 which means I suppose neither I nor anyone else can debate this subject
I think the underlying principle is the same: if the defendants produce a legal claim that they can’t get a fair hearing because of what sone ‘Kipper said, people will be annoyed…
Hi Sponplague.
I’m withdrawn the letter on your advice and appreciate your helpful guidance pointing out the legal ramifications.
Kind Regards
Kevin Baverstock
(Mr Bav)
Better safe than sorry in thse matters! ?
Indeed Sir!
and to calm all fears, I feel I may soon be able to get the hang of this infernal typewriter contraption thing.
Not so much “Newspeak” as “Newtype” then?
“But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved his Big Blue typewriter…” ?
and his letter.
Just tocorrect any misaprehensions, I was referring to the gentlman Flood.
Absolutely, exactly.