Today’s letters reflect the two main political events which took place this week – Ms May’s speech on Tuesday Jan. 17th and the inauguration of Donald Trump as 45th President of the USA on Jan 20th – by asking pertinent questions about how these events affect UKIP. The first letter is by Torquil Dick-Erikson, illustrating that the repeal of the EAW is still not addressed:
Here is a comment I have posted online on this article in the Daily Telegraph article, and which ought to be of interest to readers of UKIP Daily:
I agree with other readers that this analysis by the “Director of the Foreign Policy Centre at the Heritage Foundation and a former special adviser at the Ministry of Defence” (!!) is completely wrong. It is in line with Hillary Clinton’s view that the main adversary of the West in the world today is Putin’s Russia, not militant Islam (we are told that she took millions of Saudi money for her campaign). Yet this view seems to be in line with present government policy. Mrs May has just annoyed (to put it mildly) those governments that she is pleased to call “our EU allies”, with her forthright rhetoric on Tuesday, full of supposedly resolute Brexiteering spirit. And yet she (and Mr Coffey) says at the end of her speech’s point 11, that she wishes Britain to continue to “lead Europe in sanctions against Russia”. As if they would accept a British leadership! So we antagonise our so-called “EU allies” by pulling out of the EU. We make an enemy of Putin. And, after Trump has expressed his warmth for Britain, and said “an independent Britain will move to the front of the queue” for a trade deal with the USA, we alienate him too, at a time when he wants to seek a rapprochement with Russia! The result of these policies combined will be to leave Britain without a friend in the world.
How did this totally disjointed thinking ever pass muster from the mandarins of the Foreign Office? There can only be one explanation.
It is deliberate.
The intention can only be to actually make a dog’s breakfast of Brexit.
Mrs May’s rousing speech in fact says “No to EU membership, no to single market membership”, but ‘Maybe’ to an “associate membership of the EU’s customs union”. And there is not a word about reclaiming our fishing grounds. Nor about suspending the implementation of the iniquitously unevidenced European Arrest Warrants, which put the liberty of each and every person in the UK under the unsupported say-so of questionable European judicial authorities. Why, in one instance, even a retired British judge (!!) was hauled out of bed at dawn by our own police on the orders of an EAW, to be shipped over to prison in mainland Europe, there to await the outcome of investigations into his case (ultimately dropped, like numbers of others, for lack of evidence).
Any serious Brexit programme would start off by at once suspending the implementation of EAWs received from continental Europe without any evidence of wrongdoing which can be assessed by a British court. Without this safeguard, enjoyed by Brits in Britain since Magna Carta, we are still a vassal state, at the end of the day.
Respectfully, Torquil Dick-Erikson
The next letter by Cllr Paul Foyster asks questions which need answers, especially in the wake of the Inauguration of Donald Trump as 45th president of the USA and the change in policies this will bring:
James Dalton writes in his article : ” times are a-changing” – true enough! The point here is that we too have to move with them. Our attempts to take Labour votes is a good start, the gap between rich and working low earners is an insult to us all, but there is so much more we can do. So many members of the public have no idea what we stand for, except obviously Brexit and maybe they think we dislike immigrants.
As far as I know no local UKIPers dislikes immigrants on principle. What they do object to is the system which allows anyone and his cousin to come here. The key factors are quantity, quality and illegals, in this respect we are very badly served. My excellent dentist from South Africa had to jump through multiple hoops to come but an unemployed labourer from the EU just walks in, irrespective of having a criminal record in his native country.
Few people read full newspaper articles. They form their opinions from headlines, which usually consist of an anti-UKIP statement: the media, being part of the establishment, don’t like being challenged, and their smears do damage us.
Since even if we upgrade our failing education, turning out medical people, IT technicians, engineers and other skilled workers instead of sports psychologists, hairdressers, sandal knitters etc., it takes years to train specialists, so we will need to poach from elsewhere in the short term. A flexible points system, a requirement to learn English, integrate, observe our laws and social norms and a strong border are what’s needed, along with temporary and conditional visas for seasonal workers. This must to apply to all migrants, not just those from the EU. Filling the skills gap needs to be a UKIP target. It is the medium to long term solution so we should take on the secondary school system and university education.
In my opinion we need a small number of principal policy targets that we can get through to the public. I have my own ideas of where we should go, others will have different lists, but Brexit has to be just one item.
May I suggest:
Brexit and all that comes with it, border control, electoral reform, education, foreign aid, energy, local government, transport, healthcare, indirect taxation and housing as prime shortlist items for us to address, though the best 5 policy areas may be enough. It must be kept short and clear, Remain or Leave worked because it was a simple choice. Only political anoraks, as we tend to be, bother with detail, the rest just need to know the direction of travel, not a route map.
I wonder what other members think we should concentrate on?
Respectfully, Paul Foyster.