Today’s first letter relates both to the GE and to the barring of Anne Marie Waters by the NEC, on which we reported here. It is by our reader AP:


by coincidence only, on Saturday 29th April Kippers here in Barrow met to hear AMW, an arrangement made before the election was called. The chosen venue cancelled at the last minute, probably threatened by hate rather than hope. But our chairman’s a clever chap and we had a Plan B. We also had a BBC Reporter with us all day so God alone knows what will be reported.

When the election was called, it took us about week but we soon realised that this is Referedum 2, disguised as an election, and that May’s promise of “Brexit means Brexit” is not what it seems, an interpretation incidentally that seems to have eluded some of the leadership group. The media might be pushing the idea that she’s the next Maggie and she’s been very clever at letting people believe what they want to hear. And if she can carry that through for the next 6 or 7 weeks, without a coordinated UKIP exposure plan to challenge her, she can deliver a Brexit ice-cube (in 2019 – nearly 3 years after 23.6.16) when so many people today are excited by the prospect of a Brexit iceberg. (It’s a metaphor Paul – get someone to explain it to you.)

Listening to AMW, she’s passionate, perjorative at times but oddly dispassionate too, in that legal scholarly way. But what she knowledgeably describes is shocking. Heavily summarised: if cutting up girls, paedophilia, domestic and sexual slavery is your thing, then Sharia’s for you. But the political aspect is even more shocking – that Sharia Courts were permitted by Blair in 2004 (about when AMW qualified as a lawyer and specialised in Family Law), that the caseload is too big for the UK legal system, that it largely happens behind closed, mosque doors and that it obviously is very bad news for the women involved. And it is spreading – as in “Sharia – coming to a town near you soon…”

AMW questions why the Authorities refuse to confront that situation. She speculated about weak politicians who will shut their eyes and say or do anything for the money, that the Liberal elite maybe cannot grasp that there are dictators & autocrats keeping a lid of their very violent opponents who are people who don’t want to play nicely. She doesn’t confuse Islam with Muslims – we discussed Saed Shar for example, poor man murdered last year by an Islamic nut-job (or hit-man) for wishing his customers a happy Easter.

But what she and I don’t get is: why suspend her now – they could hardly pick a worse time to divert the media, why the leadership group doesn’t interpret the significance of this referendum/election (where AMW’s Sharia concerns are barely relevant domestically for the next few weeks but very much of interest to kippers in the future), and why they do not seek to expose the contributions of the Blairs, Bransons, Soros’s, Merkels, Junckers and now May – to letting this deeply violent misogynist creed into Europe. And here too in the UK thanks to Blair and followers.

They must get it. So why don’t they attempt to stop it? And why on earth is the UKIP leadership shooting us in the foot rather than extolling our greatest strength, that we are people from all sides of the political divide who can work together, on anything the others throw at us?

Respectfully, AP, PPC Barrow

Today’s second letter is by our reader Septimus Octavius, musing on the French elections:


There really is no point in speculating about the outcome of the second round of voting for the French President; the result will be known by 10.00 pm on Sunday 7 May. Virtually every commentator says that Macron will win, and you can easily get odds of 10 to 1 on a Le Pen victory.

That said, we do know that voters do not like to be told what to do by the elite, and shocking surprises can indeed happen; but, to some extent, it does not really matter either way, as the President’s powers are very limited – and Macron does not even have a party.

However, the actuality is that a Macron win will be seen as a massive vote for a “steady as you go” EU and Euro, whereas a win for Le Pen would be taken as a death warrant for each of them. Both views are equally hyperbolic, but such is the world’s media.

What is of rather more interest is the voting in the first round. Here, Le Pen got 21.4%, but more significantly Melenchon got 19.6%. This means that over 40% of the French voters voted for leaving the Euro and the EU.

That does not bode well for either the institution, or its currency, does it?

Respectfully, Septimus Octavious

Today’s last letter, by our ‘legal eagle’ Roving Reporter, takes another critical look at Brexit, Brexit negotiations and the EU – and please note well the footnotes therein:


There have been no formal negotiations yet, and the serious stuff might not be started until after the German elections [Ed: Sept. 2017]. However, there has been a lot of sabre rattling, mainly by the assembled cohorts of the EU.  This has not been unhelpful, and assists in the production of the following points, which should be promulgated by the UK team at the outset of the talks proper:

  1.      The EU guarantees the right of all UK nationals lawfully resident in the EU to remain in the EU in perpetuity and the UK guarantees the right of all EU nationals lawfully resident in the UK to remain in the UK in perpetuity.  This provision must be agreed before any further negotiations take place.  Once this provision has been agreed the following are the terms and conditions which the UK proposes as the withdrawal agreement pursuant to the provisions of Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.
  2.      All trading terms, conditions and agreements relating exclusively to the sale and purchase of goods and services between the UK and the EU shall remain wholly unchanged from those applying at present.
  3.      All arrangements, protocols and agreements relating to co-operation between the UK and the EU concerning intelligence, policing, the prevention of terrorism, and all other such matters, shall remain wholly unchanged from those applying at present.
  4.      Until the UK is released from the Treaties pursuant to Article 50 the payments at present made by the UK to the EU and those made in any way shape or form by the EU to the UK or to any person, company, institution, partnership, charity, or any other entity in the UK, shall continue wholly unchanged. In the event of any deduction or reduction of any sort with regard to the said payments by the EU, the UK will deduct the amount of such deduction or reduction from the said payments it makes to the EU.
  5.      When the UK is released from the Treaties pursuant to Article 50 it shall immediately cease all payments to the EU and shall not pay anything at all to the EU thereafter. *)
  6.      The UK shall not make any payment of any sort, or in any way, at any time, to the EU beyond those hereinbefore specified, and the EU will not make any payment of any sort to the UK or to any entity within the UK as aforesaid beyond those hereinbefore specified.**)

And that’s that.

Respectfully, A Roving Reporter


*) There can be no payment for “continued access” or some such.

**)  For the avoidance of doubt, this is a critically important legal point; Article 50 does not provide for any payment either way. This is not a “divorce” and there is no “divorce bill”. A figure of 60 billion euros has been bandied about; the correct figure is precisely nil.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email