The following letters reflect the increasing apprehension about Ms May’s withdrawal Agreement and the way she is trying to ‘sell’ it. The first one comes from our reader Toby Horton:

Sir,

The very finest of Malton’s MP’s was the immortal Edmund Burke. The great champion of our fast-disappearing freedoms, he represented the constituency from 1780 to 1794.   Yet as the EU tries again to steal our liberties and undermine our country, it is to Malton’s greatest thinker that we must once more return. His warning that “the true danger is when liberty is nibbled away, for expedience, and by parts” rings especially true as the House of Commons approaches its crucial vote on 11th December.

When I was studying at Oxford University so many years ago, I founded a new debating society, the Edmund Burke Society, in memory of the great man and as a counterweight to the lefty-dominated Oxford Union. It thrived, and in time Theresa May (then Brasier) and her husband Philip both became its President. However, I suspect that they saw this merely as a career move and never troubled to read anything by the most profound of political thinkers. His warnings about arbitrary power in the hands of the government with its “officious, universal interference” have been ignored in Mrs. May’s wretched, tawdry EU surrender document.

Any MP who is seriously considering voting with the Government on 11th December should now hang his or her head in shame.   Burke campaigned against the imposition of taxes without representation as “perfect uncompensated slavery” when “nobody will be argued into slavery”, yet Mrs. May’s huge transfers of money and power to Brussels with no long-term settlement will do just that. “Bad laws are the worst sort of tyranny” declared Burke, yet the so-called Withdrawal Agreement represents the very worst of laws. “People never give up their liberties but under some delusion” he argued, yet Mrs. May and her dwindling band of supporters are trying to delude and hoodwink us. They are also betraying solemn undertakings given in last year’s General Election manifestos and Article 50 process.

For the sake of our freedoms and democracy, our MP’s must now oppose Mrs. May’s squalid betrayal and work instead for a clean Brexit next March under World Trade Organisation rules. This has always been available, and preparations should have begun over two years ago. The whole concept of ‘No Deal’ does not exist when the WTO outcome is on offer.   It is the only outcome that the greatest of Malton’s MP’s would have recognised and acknowledged. But a warm and cosy seat in Parliament probably appeals to many MP’s more than the security and integrity of our country. No doubt it will left to UKIP, now once more rising in the polls and with membership rapidly increasing, to save the day again.

Respectfully, Toby Horton, Prospective UKIP Parliamentary Candidate for Thirsk & Malton

Our contributor and correspondent sent in his observations on Mr Carney’s ‘Brexit projections’:

Sir,

Mark Carney’s Brexit projections have NOT factored in any significant reduction in the cost of E.U. regulations. This Moneyweek article illustrates yet again why we must not be constrained in future by the E.U. rule book.

It imposes an enormous burden on the vast majority of UK companies (around 90%) which don’t even export to the E.U. but are expected to comply with it. (See this article).

In 2005 Gordon Brown estimated the total cost of EU Regulation compliance at 7% of GDP, i.e. over £150bn pa. Offloading that burden alone would blow Carney’s estimates into deep space…

But above all that is the need to be free of EU unelected tyrants such as the one below.  Just watch his lips.

They will only reform towards ever closer Fiscal, Political and Military union. Their answer to every problem is more EU and 408 (62.8%) of constituencies rejected that in 2016.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

Our correspondent Geoffrey Brooking writes:

Sir,

As regards Theresa the Appeaser vs Steptoe: Why have a fresh television debate when there is not a fresh vote?

Why is Theresa the Appeaser so different when it comes to debating now as opposed to at the General Election in 2017?

Why have a debate between two Remainers? Why not even it up by inviting Boris Johnson or David Davis and Nigel Farage too?

Yet again, what we are seeing is a deliberate ploy to overturn the original referendum and have another. It stinks of yet another attempted establishment stitch up.

Also, where have the supposed Tory Brexiteers like Portsmouth’s Donna Jones gone? Is she too scared to speak out because she could get kicked off the Tory General Election candidates list?

Believe me folks, the General Election is sooner than most people think and if Brexiteers don’t stand up now, it may become too late. So, put principles before ambition and put Brexit first!

Respectfully, Geoffrey Brooking

Finally, also on Ms May and her Withdrawal Agreement, here is a letter from our contributor Ann Farmer:

Sir,

It is interesting to note that just as during the Referendum campaign the emphasis was not on the benefits of remaining in the EU but the horrific consequences of leaving, the emphasis is now not on the benefits of accepting Mrs May’s plan for Brexit In Name Only – remaining tied to the EU but without any input to decision-making – but on the horrific consequences of rejecting it. As Hilaire Belloc wrote of young Jim, who ran away and was eaten by a lion, ‘always keep a-hold of Nurse/ for fear of finding something worse.’

However, we should learn the lesson of those dire Referendum warnings from the Remain-leaning elites that failed to materialise, because if we accept Mrs May’s BRINO, unlike the referendum we will never have another chance to escape. Those whose higher patriotism is to Brussels will be delighted to be permanently locked into the EU, but they are mostly from the more comfortable classes, and it is a strange fact that those with least to gain from their own country in material terms are the most patriotic. In this instance, however, theirs is the greater wisdom, because we became prosperous as a nation through trading with the whole world – venturing into its wildest regions – and we will prosper again. It is time to escape from Nurse, because if we stick with her plan, we are much more likely to be devoured by the ravenous beasts of Brussels.

Respectfully, Ann Farmer

Print Friendly, PDF & Email