The first letter in today’s edition is from contributor and comment writer Pamela Preedy, looking back at the situation before Brexit and emphasising why we need UKIP:

Dear Leave Voter,

I would like to congratulate and thank you for having the common sense and courage to vote LEAVE in the EU referendum. You were one of 17,410,742 people who voted for a lucky escape from an organisation that wants to rule us, but does not care about us. Seventeen and a half million votes: that’s more than any political party has ever received in the history of voting to elect a British government.  It’s more people than voted ‘Yes’ (to Remain) in the last referendum, in 1975.

The most astonishing reaction to the 2016 referendum result has been that of the “Shock, horror, we didn’t expect that, we don’t believe it!” brigade, especially among the professional politicians and media pundits who are supposed to be sensitive to the mood of the country. Were these ‘experts’ unaware that as soon as Cameron announced in January 2013 that there was to be a referendum, every UKIP branch in the country was on high alert and preparing for the opportunity? 

Did they fail to notice the result of the 2014 EU Election in which UKIP, the ONLY political party that is 100% Brexit, swept the board and returned more MEPs to the so-called EU parliament than any other party?

Perhaps it escaped their attention that in the 2015 General Election, there were nearly 4 million people who voted for UKIP. (The fact that these voters are represented by only one MP in the House of Commons highlights the urgent need for electoral reform.)

Is it possible that after the referendum was set for 23rd June and Brexiteers swung into action, the “We don’t believe it” brigade managed to ignore the thousands of UKIP and other volunteers who campaigned nationwide with vigour and determination?

Did they overlook the many anti-EU groups that made it their business to overcome Cameron’s ‘Project Fear’ and win a majority against the odds? Maybe they thought that these groups were divided and therefore ineffective. 

Not so: UKIP Redcar delivered leaflets and held stalls not only for UKIP, but also for ‘Better Off Out’, and ‘GO!’, as well as the officially designated ‘Vote Leave’ group.  We travelled to the Sage, Gateshead where Nigel Farage shared a Brexit platform with Labour and Conservative MPs, as well as a prominent Trade Union leader.   Nationally, we supported and applauded anyone of any political party who shared our aim of Brexit.

Were the Remainers and the media, especially the BBC, so complacent and arrogant that they simply couldn’t believe that most voters disagreed with their elitist pro-EU views?   If that is the case, they deserved their defeat.

The Great British electorate turned out on a massive scale and we used our vote to show the political class who is boss. Who now can say that voting doesn’t change anything? We Leavers deserve our hard-won victory!

Nonetheless, we need to keep the pressure on in order to achieve a clean and complete break from the EU. The new PM, Theresa May, has declared ‘Brexit means Brexit’, but what does she actually mean – Brexit Lite or Brexit Max? Can we trust a Conservative from the Remain camp to follow through and deliver everything that we voted for when we put our cross in the ‘Leave’ box? Since she became the new PM, there has been an unprecedented surge in UKIP membership applications from people who realise that Theresa MAY, but only UKIP WILL.

It is certainly true that without UKIP, there would have been no referendum; and it remains the one party that has always believed 100% in Britain’s ability to rule itself successfully. If you have concerns about Westminster backsliding on any Brexit issue, join UKIP and help us keep the pressure on.

Yours sincerely,

Pamela Preedy, UKIP Redcar Branch Secretary

The second letter comes from a UKIP member and reader of this site who has also contributed comments, addressing the issue of UKIP’s Constitution:


I write to make clear that the Constitutional proposal written by myself as part of the campaign I run within the Party has been drafted and submitted to the party at large in the interests of all, to provide fair and impartial ground rules for all, whatever their political emphasis or factional allegiance. It is designed with democracy and accountability in mind to assure every member of UKIP – be they in leadership or in ordinary membership – that this party will put behind it all those practices, mindset and (ab)use of rules and procedure which have led to so many problems, and have built up so much grievance and distrust.

It is also designed to allow any sincere and moral leadership to get on with the job of leading the party forward to the success we all want to see. I have now written to Victoria Ayling and to Nathan Gill as two people I am given to understand are in touch with lawyers considering the constitutionality of my proposal, or proposals borrowing heavily from it.

I have drawn their attention to the need – both as common courtesy and as a matter of communication as well as sound politics – to keep me abreast of any changes and to seek my assent to such before submitting proposals to be voted on by members.

I have pointed out that my proposal is already out there and has been seen by grassroots members, and therefore any attempt to amend my proposal will be evident.

For a faction in the party – however influential – to make use of a proposal designed for all, will only add to tensions and problems. Perhaps this is what certain people want in pursuit of an agenda to change the nature of this party entirely, or else to destroy it and pick up from the pieces to advance  another venture. It should also be made clear that I regard myself as having copyright over the proposal and assert that to clarify the position. I do so as steward of a work undertaken in entirely selfless concern for our party and its future.

That I have not been approached by anyone of the group proposing to use my proposal to ascertain my consent, my thinking in its construction etc, bodes ill regarding their intentions. It is just such a way of doing business that we need to be shot of. It suggests that the intention is to use what looks good and gives it credence and acceptability while simultaneously introducing changes that take the party off in the direction they want.

The matter will not be left as it is… Democracy is not Demagogy, and those who are playing with this need to both appreciate and learn the difference. A page on my new blog site at applies. Or perhaps they have no such intention …

Be assured, that this campaign is known to you all for what it stands for and why. I will not therefore stand idly by and allow a travesty to be enacted.

In hope that this will be resolved properly and to the benefit of the Party asap.


Ray Catlin

Print Friendly, PDF & Email