Today’s letters provide important material to be used in the GE 2017 campaign, both for UKIP candidates and for UKIPpers needing to ask inconvenient questions of opponents. The first letter is by our contributor Richard Mott:

Sir,

The worst thing that could happen to this country on 8th June is for Labour to win outright or otherwise gain power as part of a divisive coalition of unpatriotic mischief-makers. Therefore, when the ballot paper is in my hand, pencil poised, I must make a judgement perhaps more carefully than ever before. I most likely will not be able to vote UKIP and here is my reasoning:

(1) Our grossly unfair first past the post electoral system saw UKIP gain 3,800,000 votes but just one, now departed, member of Parliament.

(2) In the local elections of 2013, I voted UKIP and got Conservative.

(3) In the general election of 2015, I voted UKIP and got Conservative.

(4) Since Nigel Farage stepped down as party leader, UKIP has lurched from one crisis to another and brought itself into disrepute.

UKIP’s central (but not only) policy of fighting to leave the European Union has been achieved yet it is not secured and may yet be in danger.

While UKIP has increasingly found favour in Labour areas, its core originated with disaffected Conservatives. I believe UKIP should identify no more than 20 to 30 seats, preferably in Labour areas, where it has a fighting chance of success and then throw its limited resources at them. Even to the extent of entering an electoral pact with the Tories, UKIP should not contest the election on a national basis where it may unwittingly allow a Labour victory by diluting the centre right vote. Much as we may not like it, a Conservative majority is so much more preferable to Corbyn’s party which, perhaps in a noxious coalition of narrow-minded allies, would ruin this country in short order.

Whereas Labour, the Lib Dems and the SNP put their destructive left-wing party politics above the country, I must put the country above party allegiance.

Respectfully, Richard Mott

The next letter is by our ‘legal eagle’, A Roving Reporter:

Sir,

For the UK to leave the EU is a relatively simple process, which is now formally underway.

In a previous paper I have emphasised the ease with which the “acquis” (EU law incorporated into UK law) will apply post-Brexit as it does now, requiring only a technical reinstatement of EU Regulations.

What is slightly more complex is the issue of the European Court of Justice (“the ECJ”).  While the UK remains a member of the EU, the UK Supreme Court is not the supreme court in the UK; rather, the supreme court is the ECJ. However, as soon as the Article 50 process ends, and the UK is released from the Treaties, the Supreme Court does indeed become the supreme court in the UK – instantaneously.

Article 50 thus furnishes a clean break, and the short point is that nothing should be allowed to soil it.

An issue which arises is the substantial body of ECJ case law which has been built up in interpreting the acquis while the UK has been a member of the EU. It is necessary for that case law to remain effective post-Brexit, but only so far as is appropriate with regard to each individual case; so, for example, if a Regulation is repealed, all ECJ case law relating to it must be removed contemporaneously from UK law.

Equally important is the end of the jurisdiction of the ECJ post-Brexit. This needs to be hammered home in the light of some unlawful suggestions that have recently come from the EU, to the effect that the ECJ would continue to hold sway with regard to EU nationals in the UK even post-Brexit. That will not happen; the UK Supreme Court will be the final court of appeal for all purposes then, including interpretation of whatever remains of the acquis.

The relevant clause of the statute which the “Great Repeal Bill” spawns might therefore look something like this:

“ (i) The ECJ shall cease to have any jurisdiction in the UK upon the UK being released from the Treaties pursuant to Article 50 of the Lisbon Treaty.

(ii) Decisions of the ECJ made prior to the said release of the UK from the Treaties shall continue to have effect in the UK only insofar as such effect may be necessary and appropriate with regard to the then subsisting subject matter of each Decision from time to time.”

Respectfully, A Roving Reporter.

The last letter is by our contributor Jack Thomas:

Sir,

Critical activities, whether in business, construction, software development and maintenance or elsewhere, require a backup plan in case something goes wrong.  If those activities are mission critical then a hierarchy of such plans might be appropriate. Our clean and full exit from the EU is surely a mission critical activity but I see no evidence of a backup plan.

I doubt that May has a secret plan except for an unacceptable fallback position where we would remain tied to the EU in some way. Certainly there are many ongoing “cooperative” activities which suggest that to be the case.

The likelihood of all of the other 27 member states agreeing to a common plan for our exit is all but impossible. Any possibility that such common plan would be in any way acceptable to us simply does not exist. Furthermore civil servants and government ministers have been messing about for almost 10 months since the referendum and have still not published a list of necessary tasks and outcomes required to respect the referendum result. Some topics which we hear little or nothing about include:

  • Replacement of necessary agricultural policies
  • Reclaiming our fishing grounds
  • Removing our reliance on cross channel ports such as Rotterdam
  • Controlling our borders in a proper manner
  • Distancing ourselves from an EU military
  • Tit for tat in respect of trade tariffs
  • Removal of EAW powers
  • Return to our own HGV weight limits to protect our infrastructure
  • Restoring our military capability to that appropriate to an independent nation rather than a part of the EU

Of course there is much more but all that we get is the misnamed “Great Repeal Bill” which will replicate EU law as our own. Can we really trust politicians to change that to suit or own, and only our own, needs?

So what will happen on the day that the Article 50 negotiations fail as they are bound to do?

We need a backup plan to deal with that. It must be comprehensive and cannot be developed in the usual slipshod manner of government, so will take time of which months have already been lost. What I would like to see as a quick to develop part of it is a plan to withdraw from the various EU treaties using the Vienna Convention. Others (e.g. here) have already written about that so I will not go into the detail here. However that plan requires the giving of 12 months notice so, if triggered on failure of the Article 50 negotiations without any extension, we would still be 3 years away from exit.

That suggests to me that such notice should be given now to avoid that delay. Maybe the notice period could be set to coincide with the Article 50 conclusion; I am not a legal bod so perhaps someone suitably qualified could comment on that. That alone should make it clear to the EU controllers that we are serious about leaving, will show them that we will do so and will fix the date by avoiding any possible extension of Article 50 negotiations.

Of course I would be much happier if that notice were to be given now and the trap of Article 50 avoided altogether. The prospect of May gaining more power after the coming election worries me somewhat, but so does the possibility of the remainers gaining more representation.

Although we might leave the EU, hopefully without any vestige of EU control, we will still face the possibility of a future government taking us back in. The only preventative measure I see for that is to work with our friends in Europe to secure the total destruction of the EU with measures in place to deal with anyone who involves themselves in trying to recreate it.

Of course that will not be the end of the matter; next target the globalists.

Respectfully, Jack Thomas

Print Friendly, PDF & Email