The first letter, about the Richmond by-election result last week, is from our reader Roger Arthur:

Sir,

While some “Richmond Remains” have punished Zac Goldsmith, only 49.7% voted Lib Dem in the by election, while 69% voted in June to remain in the EU. So the number of Remainers in Richmond seems to have reduced substantially, perhaps because Project Fear has been discredited.

If that change of heart were to be reflected across the UK, then the number of “Leave” constituencies could be well in excess of the 400 which voted to leave the EU. Indeed, pro-Brexit candidates should be able to win a General Election comfortably. That is provided that there are enough of them. But with over 470 pro-remain MPs now, a large number of them may need to be replaced in advance of a GE. Added to that there is a risk that two competing pro-Brexit candidates in “Leave” constituencies could split the leave vote, letting in Remainers.

So Parliamentary Candidate (PC) selection would need to be carefully coordinated, if Article 50 is to be invoked by Parliament, followed by repeal of the EC Act. This is certainly not the time for infighting between Vote Leave groups, who worked together successfully in the Referendum, or for more by-elections.

A “soft-Brexit MP” in Sleaford has just initiated a by-election, throwing further doubt into the mix. He is a pro-Brexit Tory who believes that the UK should stay in the Single Market, but has concluded that the PM intends to take us totally out of it. He must have an insight into the mind of the PM, which many of us mere mortals don’t have!

Thus we now have at least three different types of MP to contend with, ie i) pro-Remain, ii) pro-Brexit and iii) others who want some form of compromise – and so no one can predict whether a General Election would help to deliver Brexit, or not.

Even if the Supreme Court accepts the use of the Royal Prerogative by the PM – to invoke Article 50 – we could still face an attempt by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) to rule on the way in which Article 50 is applied. We also have to recognise that Article 50 was not designed to make Brexit easy and that 65% of EU members have to approve the UK’s Brexit proposals.

So on one hand we face the risk of a confrontation with the Judiciary, oron the other a General Election leaving us without a clear Brexit majority. Even if the PM is allowed to proceed with her plan, we still face being bogged down in the Article 50 trap for many years.

This is clearly not an easy crossroads for the PM, but since Ministers signed EU treaties using the Royal Prerogative the PM should clearly be able to denounce the same treaties by the same means, based on the Vienna Convention – leaving the EC Act irrelevant. That contingency plan should avoid the above risks and should see Parliament proposing and making our laws once again – and much sooner.

Since 544 MPs voted to hold a referendum, saying that “it is now for the people to decide”, they can hardly complain if the PM does deliver what 400 constituencies voted for. We may soon find out if she is prepared to do that, or if she does not have a contingency plan – which would be a dereliction of duty. If (as seems likely) she has no contingency plan, then that must surely be exposed relentlessly.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

Today’s second letter is from our reader and contributor David Jessop:

Sir,

See this recent quote in the press: “The general public can now see very clearly that the whole scale and nature of our society is being changed, and without their consent.”  Lord Andrew Green.

Here are my own observations from the month of November spent in the UK: Most of my time was spent in the northern town where I grew up, visiting family. There had been a Muslim presence in particular areas of the town when I moved away in the 1970s; indeed one particular road was known locally as the “Khyber Pass”, a well used unclassified route into the town.  Those areas were few in number so did not pose an immediate visible threat. Over the years I was told of further “ghettoisation” by family members who had remained in the area. This included some well-to-do areas with properties which were expensive at the time and unaffordable by many of the native population. However the incomers (perhaps more correctly “invaders”) had developed a strategy. That was to purchase a small number of those properties, create an almighty mess and much criminal activity in the neighbourhood, and force the native Brits to move elsewhere. Of course properties became unsellable to the natives and prices plummeted, allowing them to be purchased by the incomers to create another ghetto.

However, none of this could prepare me for what I experienced on my visit:

  • Vast areas now taken over by the incomers
  • Virtually every local shop taken over by the incomers
  • A school yard with young kids out to play and a very small number of white faces evident
  • College students out for lunch, the large majority of them non English
  • All sorts of buildings having been converted to mosques
  • An Islamic College with an inscription honouring a past MP (English) for his support

Perhaps more surprising was wandering around the town centre in the daytime where Eastern European languages seemed to predominate. This at times when one might expect working age people to be either at work or sleeping after the night shift. Weren’t we told that all these EU immigrants were necessary to supplement our own workforce and good for our economy?

I also spent a short time on the South Coast where I had last resided when in England a few years ago. Here the picture was quite different with few Muslims and a perhaps lesser presence of Eastern Europeans. I doubt that most there would believe the extent of the invasion in the North; perhaps they wonder why others are continually calling for immigration restrictions. 

My conclusion: Lord Green was right to raise the issue but wrong in the detail. Our society has already been changed in many areas and, of course, without consent save that of those in Parliament. The invader is well entrenched and becoming more so; clearly the forbidden topic of repatriation needs to be on the agenda if we are not to lose our country. Unfortunately there are still areas which have not experienced the invasion and their residents unable to accept that fact.

UKIP faces some hard decisions if we are to recover our country; let us hope that the new leader does not shy away from them.

Respectfully, David Jessop

Print Friendly, PDF & Email