In the wake of the EU Parliament’s “debate” on Wednesday 5th April, today’s letter by our contributor and reader Torquil Dick-Erikson draws our attention to the lukewarm attitude of Ms May in regard to Brexit:


This series of pictures in The Express of Tusk meeting May is most eloquent. Especially his thumbs-up after the meeting…

Compare and contrast with the anti-British bile displayed in the EU Parliament!

I have long predicted that Theresa May is not to be trusted to carry Brexit through.

Evidence of this has always been visible in her record as Home Secretary – she pushed for the UK to opt back into the European Arrest Warrant, thus placing every person in Britain at the mercy of alien judiciaries who are empowered to arrest and imprison anyone at will, for they do not have to provide any evidence, neither before the extradition, nor even after it has taken place, for many long months. And in June 2012 she made a statement to the House of Commons that “of course” we would welcome in “special intervention units from our EU allies onto British soil, if we saw the need”. This means the lethally-armed, paramilitary European Gendarmerie Force, which would put Britain under effective military occupation since they will only take orders from Brussels, and once inside the country would not leave if asked to by a merely British authority.

And now as Prime Minister, her Home Secretary Amber Rudd made a statement to the Commons on March 6th, to say that they would keep the EAW, and our membership of EUROPOL (the EU’s embryo FBI, to be given operational powers – not a branch of Interpol) even after Brexit, so indefinitely.

Yet many of our Brexiteers have allowed themselves to be seduced by her honeyed words, her vibrant rhetoric that “Brexit means Brexit”. The above mentioned facts have been steadfastly ignored, or considered to be of merely secondary importance, by nearly everyone in the Brexiteering camp. The issues of freedom and security – Mrs May’s weak spot – were not publicly debated during the referendum campaign. And now, so successfully has she appeared to have stolen our clothes, that UKIP has allowed itself to be sidelined, to the point of being considered “surplus to requirements”.

Yet now she is openly seen to be backsliding on what are considered the primary issues. It is even being reported in mainstream media on the continent.

Today’s Italian paper headlines, “The ‘retreat’ by Theresa May over Brexit’ (this on page 15 of the top-selling, Eurofanatical Corriere della Sera – in editorials they call Nigel “fascistoid” (!) ):

“… it was enough for the EU to clarify that there are some red lines that cannot be crossed to induce the London government to soften its demands…  On two points in particular Theresa May has given us to understand that she is ready for a compromise. … she now seems willing to concede that in two years’ time it will only be possible to sketch out the forms of future relations…. a long transition period will be needed before a final agreement can be finalised… She now admits also that Europeans will be able to enter the UK freely for several years after Brexit. And as for the “divorce bill”, the government now acknowledges that it will have to pay a substantial price into the European coffers… This generalised march backwards… risks being dangerous for May: there are many in the government and in the Tory party who continue to dream of a clean break with the EU….”.

[The last remark may overestimate the stomach for a fight in the Tory Parliamentary ranks.]

The tragedy is that UKIP does not even have one voice in the Commons!

Respectfully, Torquil Dick-Erikson.

The next letter is by our reader David Meacock on the Scottish Question – or rather, on the near-daily appearance of Ms Sturgeon’s opinions and demands in our MSM:


Nicola Sturgeon, SNP Leader, has never complained that the 2014 Scottish Independence Referendum was unfair, but rather justifies calling for a second referendum because of the BREXIT vote being two years after the first Scottish Referendum and the Scots voting remain.

Crucially over a year prior to the Scottish Referendum, the EU Referendum Bill commenced its lengthy passage through Westminster in June 2013 in fulfilment of PM Cameron’s January 2013 promise that should his Conservative Party be re-elected following the 2015 General Election, there would be an In/Out EU Referendum.

Although many of the political Establishment thought the UK voting to leave the EU unlikely, the possibility was nonetheless fully known, but neither Nicola Sturgeon nor anybody else on her side said that acceptance of the Scottish Independence Referendum vote result was conditional on any subsequent actions of the UK government, and nor did they specifically request a postponement of the 2014 Referendum – until after the EU Referendum went the wrong way from her viewpoint!

Thus there are no reasonable grounds to go against the then SNP Leader Alex Salmond’s declaration that the 2014 result should be accepted, particularly as her proposed follow-on policies would incredulously not amount to Scotland being fully independent.

The biggest questions Nicola Sturgeon should answer is “How would Scotland simultaneously leaving a union of only four nations with a total population of 65 Million, and being shackled to a 7x larger union of 28+ nations of 500 Million people, with de-facto a proportionately smaller say, constitute “independence”?

Any truly independent country runs its own economy with its own currency, yet Nicola Sturgeon fantasises a so-called ‘independent’ Scotland would somehow maintain Sterling even though the EU, assuming it lasts long enough, will eventually require all member states to be subsumed into the Euro.

Since any independent country makes its own laws, her idea that Scotland would be Sovereign after re-joining the EU (which would anyway unlikely be allowed) is laughable given ex-EU Justice Commissioner Viviane Reding’s contention that 75% of each EU Member state’s laws originate in the EU.

Because of BREXIT, Scotland as part of the UK, the world’s 5th largest economy, will be able to make our own trade deals with any country in the world, including the EU, so why limit Scotland to the EU whose share of world trade has already halved from 40% in the 1980’s and is projected to shrink to only 10% by 2037?

Thus Nicola Sturgeon’s drone of a sour-puss double loser is totally irrelevant and certainly doesn’t amount to proposing Scottish ‘independence’ as such by any stretch of the imagination. Let’s hope the Scots as a whole wake up to the fact that there’s no sentiment in business and elect people more worthy than the likes of Nicola Sturgeon and her fellow irrational, emotion-driven nationalist fantasists.

In the meantime, any UK PM worthy of the name would remind the Scots that their referendum was only granted on the basis of it being a once in a generation exercise and therefore, since it affects all of the UK with the Westminster Parliament now being Sovereign once again, even if Holyrood unanimously votes for another one, permission won’t be granted.  But such decisiveness is probably too much to expect from someone named ‘May’ who already has form on talking the talk but failing to walk the walk: immigration . . .

Respectfully, David Meacock

Print Friendly, PDF & Email