Today, the PM Theresa May will give a speech at the meeting of the EU leaders in Florence. Brexit, it would seem, is going to be back on the agenda and UKIP needs to start re-focussing on this, and on getting back into the debate. Two of the letters published today will be of great value. The first comes from our correspondent Roger Arthur:


We saw an excellent article in last week’s Sunday Telegraph, exposing the spin associated with “Soft Brexit”.

To recap, the UK carries a direct cost of £11bn pa net to be in the EU, or about 5% of its £220bn pa of exports to the EU.

But as seen from the weblink below, tariffs around the world have fallen typically to below 3%. So the UK seems to be paying around 5% of the value of its exports to the Single Market, to avoid a 3% tariff.

So it seems that the government could give 3% pa to UK companies (eg through lower tax bills) and keep the other 2%.

Also Professor Minford estimates that prices paid by UK consumers, are 8% higher than they need be, because we are in the Customs Union.

As if that were not bad enough, the UK also carries an indirect cost for complying with EU regulations – despite the fact that over 90% of UK companies don’t even export to the EU.

Indeed in 2005 the UK Treasury issued a Paper, estimating that compliance cost at 6% of GDP, equating now to over £100bn pa (£2bn per week) assuming a UK GDP of £1,800bn pa – which exceeds the UK deficit.

If there is a net benefit of remaking on the single market and customs union, then why have we not seen calculations to make the case? Perhaps the answer is above.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

(The link shows that average world tariffs have fallen to below 3%.)

The next letter also addresses Brexit, the EU and our money – and the MSM. It is from our correspondent Septimus Octavius:


Our esteemed Foreign Secretary, Boris Johnson, published a very long article in the Daily Telegraph on Saturday 16 September.  Almost all of it was based on actual historical facts, though some did comprise optimistic projections for the future.  Among the factual parts appeared this small paragraph, constituting just a tiny percentage of the whole:

And yes – once we have settled our accounts, we will take back control of roughly £350 million per week. It would be a fine thing, as many of us have pointed out, if a lot of that money went on the NHS, provided we use that cash injection to modernise and make the most of new technology.”

It is extremely important to note that this paragraph is true.  The gross sum the UK pays to the EU is indeed £350 million per week, and the UK will certainly regain control of all that money when it is mercifully Released from the Treaties.  If one takes into account all the money which the EU pays to the UK, or any person or institution in the UK, in any way, shape or form, the net figure works out at £161 million per week.  That is a lot of money, and the maximum amount that could be spent on the NHS, even if the UK matched every penny or cent that is currently funded by the EU.

It is indicative of the hostility of the press generally and the BBC in particular to the whole idea of Brexit, that all this criticism has been made of the Foreign Secretary for telling the truth in this way.

If one analyses carefully why the fact of the £350 million has been painted as a lie, it is clear that the sole reason is that we are not enjoying it NOW, after the vote to leave, which is of course plain stupid.  We are of course still paying it to the EU, and will continue so to do while ever we are not Released from the Treaties. Talk about fake news, eh?

Respectfully, Septimus Octavius

Finally, Jane Collins MEP writes about extremism and the latest terrorist attack:


Reading about what can only be described as the failed £40 million anti extremism scheme PREVENT launched by the Labour party, one factor that seems to be preventing it from working is the people involved. Claims that they are more concerned about being called ‘racist’ than exposing the radicalisation of young muslims in this country.

Deja vu?

Unfortunately so.

Let’s think back to 2014 and the Jay report into the industrial levels of child sexual exploitation in Rotherham. Former MP Dennis MacShane admitted that he didn’t want to ‘rock the multicultural boat’ when confronted with the fact it was predominantly Pakistani Muslim men who were sexually and physically abusing and raping young, white girls. Even his successor Sarah Champion ‘resigned’ from her position in the Labour shadow cabinet when she mentioned the ‘M’ word even though she, like I, will have regular contact with survivors of this sadly ongoing situation.

When will we grow a backbone in this country? We obviously have jihadi terrorists in our communities: more than we probably know. It is alarming to hear that the foster couple in Sunbury-on-Thames, about whom I have heard very positive things from people who previously worked with them, raised concerns about his behaviour. This couple were not naive, they were savvy. They had previously fostered children from troubled backgrounds and done great work. If their concerns were reported to PREVENT, what happened? Why was this person allowed to take a bomb onto a train and a tube? Deaths were prevented not by the systems we have in this country, but by a lack of ability in chemistry of the perpetrator.

Concerns about ‘racism’ should not be relevant when dealing with this growing problem: saving innocent lives is what matters.

We need a full investigation into these claims and the buck stops with whoever put innocent lives at risk.

Respectfully, Jane Collins MEP


Print Friendly, PDF & Email