Addressing the burning issue of yesterday’s High Court decision, we publish the following two letters in this Special Edition. The first letter is by our contributor ‘Stout Yeoman’:
In response to the High Court ruling Nigel has tweeted “I now fear every attempt will be made to block or delay triggering Article 50. They have no idea the level of public anger they will provoke.”
Actually they do know. They know that without leadership the public’s anger will amount to nothing. They know that a weakened and ineffective UKIP means there is no leadership for Brexit. Even were the public to protest with demonstrations that would amount to nothing. Remember the 2 million who marched in London over Blair’s decision to invade Iraq? That worked well didn’t it.
Ah, but think of the poll tax riots, you say. That worked. Unfortunately, like is not being compared with like. The poll tax was made unworkable and so the government had no choice but to withdraw it. With the ruling on article 50, nothing is made politically unworkable for the government must obey the law. If Nigel is relying on public anger to make up for the lack of leadership then he is destined to be sorely disappointed.
On 1st November Arron Banks published a letter that ended by saying it was perhaps the end for UKIP. This man has been carping and sniping at the party for the past four months because he had not been getting his way. Like his friend the narcissist Woolfe – birds of a feather flocking together – petty egoism replaces principle, strategic insight, and any purpose higher than self-aggrandisement. Banks may yet go down in history not as the man who helped win the referendum but as the man who undermined UKIP and so Brexit.
Some people talk as though winning the referendum was UKIP’s purpose. It was not. Our purpose is to leave the EU and a referendum was merely a step on the way. The referendum may have been the easy part.
If the government loses in the supreme court then May will have an excuse to call a general election. Parliament will need to repeal the fixed term act but it is hard to see opposition parties risking being exposed as cowards by not voting for repeal. So, by next May UKIP, now hopelessly underfunded and weak from in-fighting, will face another crisis for if it cannot capitalise on fear of partial or no Brexit then it will be the end.
The media will continue to seek out Banks et al. Will they still try and undermine UKIP? Will their egos be so bruised that they cannot bring themselves to do the one necessary thing and positively support UKIP?
Yesterday afternoon Banks tweeted that Leave.eu was back “in full swing to ensure the democratic will of the people”. How exactly will Leave.eu do that? In the referendum when out campaigning I met mainly kippers. I didn’t notice pure Leave.eu ground troops. There may have been some but as we all know, because we saw it ourselves, it was mainly kippers. That a lot of people signed up to Leave.eu indicated the hunger for news, or just curiosity, but that does not translate into branch organised ground troops. Leave.eu is not fielding candidates and only electoral pressure will affect the house of commons. This afternoon Owen Smith said that Labour will seek to include a second referendum in any article 50 bill.
If Banks is thinking of turning Leave.eu into his on-line `Momentum of the right’ then he is in for a shock. It will achieve nothing for being in electoral terms nothing. It may appeal to his vanity but it will have no affect on parliament. Banks is a party member but showing disloyalty in exactly the same way that he accuses Carswell et al. I think that if Banks will not publicly change his stance then he should be expelled and the party distance itself from him. By next May when there are elections he will no longer be sought out on UKIP issues. He’ll be just another immature former member who showed that he could not put party before self running a website that the government will happily ignore..
Banks et al assumed Brexit would simply happen post referendum and that they could now take their revenge on UKIP for not doing their bidding. Oh what fools.
Respectfully, Stout Yeoman
The second letter points to a danger which may well become acute in the wake of the High Court decision. It is by our contributor Torquil Dick-Erikson:
I had published an article on ukipdaily.com, and written a letter published in The Telegraph on 18/10/16, predicting trouble ahead for the effective delivery of Brexit.
I had hoped to be wrong.
I am sorry to say that my hope that I was wrong has been dashed. My prediction has been confirmed. I see little chance now that the Supreme Court will demur and overturn the High Court’s decision.
Our judicial system is, I fear, being subverted, for when adjudicating, political interests are often present, not just legal arguments. As the experiences of Stuart Wheeler, and those of the Metric Martyrs and others, have shown.
Brexit is now to hit the iceberg, as I foresaw, with this High Court decision. If it is upheld by the Supreme Court, we will need to exhort Parliament in Churchillian, indeed Ciceronian tones, NOT to defy the will of the sovereign people.
Otherwise, a huge backlash will be due. But how? Mrs May cannot go to the country without an (unlikely) majority vote of the present Parliament to dissolve itself, under the Fixed-Term Parliament Act. If the expressed will of the British people is denied any institutional outlet, our democracy will collapse. We would be plunged into a constitutional gridlock and crisis such as Britain has not seen for over three and half centuries. The only outlet for the thwarted sovereign people would then be scythes, pitchforks and flaming torches in the streets. Very dangerous. And it would be entirely the fault of recklessly irresponsible MPs, if they vote to stop Brexit.
I only hope UKIP gets its act together in time to lead the “people’s backlash” properly, and to deter Parliament from voting to defy the expressed wish of the people, who alone hold ultimate, legitimate, sovereignty. Perhaps Nigel can be prevailed upon to return to the fray?
Respectfully, Torquil Dick-Erikson