First and most importantly, we just received this announcement from UKIP Head Office with the request to publicise it:
UKIP will launch its “Save our Service” campaign on Thursday 16th November.
Whilst praising our armed and emergency services, the government is compromising our national security and stabbing our servicemen and women, our police officers and our Border Force in the back.
UKIP is the only party fully committed to the independent security of our country and to the welfare of our uniformed personnel.
At its launch on Thursday, UKIP will make the case for reversing cuts, retaining full spectrum and independent military capability, for taking recruitment out of the hands of civilians, for a national al border strategy and for support to our armed and emergency service personnel.
When: 10.30 am, Thursday 16th November
Where: Burton Room, Institute of Directors,
Who: Henry Bolton, UKIP Leader,
Mike Hookem MEP, Veteran’s Affairs Spokesman
I do hope as many of our London-based readers as possible can attend!
The next letter is from our correspondent Mr King and is self-explanatory:
here’s my letter to Michael Gove which I’m happy for you to publish:
it is good to see you back on the Front Line. You have many supporters out here, who are heartened by that.
Some tell us that we must stay in the Single Market – at a cost of around £14bn pa, to avoid around £5bn pa in tariffs, ie around 4%, on the £117bn net that we export to to the EU.
(The direct cost of our EU membership is £11bn, plus the £3.1bn taken from UK VAT receipts, ie £14.1 bn pa in total.)
But since the UK imports £104bn net from the EU, the UK would be around £4.6bn better off in the tariff balance, assuming it leaves the SM and a 4.4% tariff is applied, see this report.
There is clearly no case for to continue to carry £14.1bn pa in cost. to avoid £5.2bn (4.4%) in tariffs.
So when we leave the EU we should gain the difference of £8.9bn pa. That is on top of the £4.6bn tariff gain, making a total gain of £13.5bn pa.
So why would we want to continue to carry the cost of EU membership, which is more than twice the tariff that we would pay, outside of the Customs Union?
Why would we do that when 165 countries trade with the Single Market, without paying for the privilege? Many of them don’t even have trade agreements with the EU.
Of course, once outside of the Customs Union the price of goods imported from beyond the EU, will no longer be inflated by EU tariffs. Prof Minford estimates that prices in the shops will then drop by around 8%.
I hope that you will publicly and relentlessly expose those who are are making a false case for us to remain in the Single Market. Thank you for taking the time to read this. I look forward to hearing your views.
Best wishes etc, “
Respectfully, Mr King
On the same point regarding Brexit and the cost (or not) of our membership, here’s a letter from our correspondent Roger Arthur:
if Brexit talks fail with the EU it’s ‘no big deal’ says Dyson. It seems that he is already paying WTO tariffs on some of his exports to the single market, tariffs which have fallen on average to below 3%.
EU membership costs the UK over £14bn pa, to avoid around £5bn pa in tariffs. That would be around 4.4% on what we export to the Single Market, offering a £9bn pa gain after leaving the single market.
Also an EU/UK 4.4% tariff on the £100bn net imported from the EU, would bring around around £4.4bn more into UK government coffers.
Part of the overall £13.4bn gain could be used to reduce Corporation Tax, to compensate exporters for the increase in tariffs.
As Dyson says, there is nothing to fear from WTO rules.
Respectfully, Roger Arthur
Finally, a letter from our contributor Jack Russell who picked up a disturbing report:
there was a very scary report on Breitbart yesterday, on how the Police, represented by their senior anti-terrorist officer, told the MSM to ‘rein in’ the way they report terrorist attacks so as not to help jihadis. You can read the report here, from which I quote what Britain’s most senior police officer said:
“You must inform but not glorify and provide the platform this evil craves,” she said.“You must investigate but not in a dangerous way which disrupts the extensive efforts of the police and security services. You must comment but not in a way that creates excessive fear and multiplies the terror.”
Given the recent pre-occupation of the police and the MSM of fighting ‘hate speech’, given the way the MSM already report terrorist attacks in ways which allow speculation to rise in such a way that every traffic accident is now regarded by the public as a probable terrorist attack, I predict that soon there will be no reports on any such attacks at all. Why? Because reporting might be offensive to some, thus: ‘hate speech’, but more importantly because, as we’ve learned, if something is not reported in the MSM it hasn’t happened.
After all, that worked fine when it was about groomers and gang rapers attacking under-age white girls: until the report by Professor Jay in 2014 it just hadn’t happened …
Respectfully, Jack Russell