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
Sorry if I have put this up already re Carn(ey)age doomcast .
Has the B of E changed its forecast from the pre referendum version of doom ?
Has the oil price stayed the same ?
And if no change , why not ?
Also note there is no change in the graph line of growth for T May plan. Not for the next 15 years anyway.
Does the B of E know we are never going to leave under T Stays plan ?
The proposed television debate between Theresa May and Jeremy Corbyn will be a farce. As Mike Hookem pointed out, it will be two Remainers going head to head on the best way to keep Britain in the EU. A one-sided debate.
I have already predicted to a colleague at work that the ‘debate’ will rapidly descent into tit-for-tat political point-scoring “my party is better than your party” etc, there will be lots of irrelevant discussions on the NHS, and the resulting conclusion will be that “we need to put this to the people to decide”. That is one way that they will try and squirm out of this.
The other possibility is that despite all the protestations from MPs that they “will not vote for” this deal, once they realise which way their toast is buttered, they will meekly fall in line and vote in favour, simply for fear of losing their seats should a General Election be called. Andrea Leadsom has quickly changed her tune, for example.
If this falls to a “meaningful vote” in Parliament, it will in no way be ‘meaningful’ if MPs are not allowed to “vote with their conscience” (to coin a phrase) but be bound by party whips, it must be a free vote.
But then again, even under the pretence of a “meaningful vote”, these cowardly duplicitous MPs don’t want to face the responsibility of their actions, hence the calls for a “Peoples Vote”, so they can wash their hands of any blame regardless of the implications of the result.
In order to overturn the result of the 2016 referendum, and in order to maintain the pretence of democracy in our country, it must be seen to be the “will of the people”. That’s what all of this is leading towards.
What question will be posed in the event of another referendum???
I can only think of one — the decision on in or out has already been made as both Tories and Labour confirmed in their latest manifestos. So the question must be:—
Do you want the UK to leave the EU under ;–
1) The PM’s agreement
OR
2) WTO rules (No Deal)
Treason May, Tory Ministers and others have been stating over the past few days that her “deal” is the only one on the table. She was interviewed today in Argentina by the BBC and Sky and repeated that hers is the only deal available.
Yet again we cannot believe anything PM May and her supporters say. There is another deal available and she has spent millions preparing for it. See this report in the Sun in October 2017:–
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/4658763/theresa-may-slaps-down-chancellor-and-approves-250m-for-no-deal-prep/
” THERESA MAY yesterday turned on the spending taps to prepare for a ‘No Deal’ Brexit The Prime Minister told the Commons that £250 million was being handed to departments such as the Home Office and HM Revenue & Customs.”
And a House of Commons “Briefing Paper” dated 7th November 2018 states:—
http://researchbriefings.files.parliament.uk/documents/CBP-8397/CBP-8397.pdf
“In June 2018 an Institute for Government (IfG) report summarised what preparations the Government would need to make for different Brexit scenarios: …. ” and “Has the Government implemented “multiple plans in parallel” to prepare for all kinds of Brexit? Philip Rycroft, DExEU Permanent Secretary, told the Exiting the EU Committee on 4 September that Brexit planning, including FOR NO DEAL, had been taking place across Departments for two years.
So May’s horrible “deal” is NOT the only one available as she keeps saying, there are preparations already well made for a No Deal which she is failing to remember!
Let us have our NO DEAL. The only true Brexit.
Treason May showed her duplicity and deceitfulness at the very beginning of her premiership by appointing a Remain dominated cabinet and delaying her Article 50 letter for eight months. What was she doing during that eight months? Wallpapering No 10?
In her Article 50 letter she asked for parallel Trade negotiations alongside the Withdrawal Agreement, and she asked it eight times in that letter. The EU batted away that request and she accepted immediately. She still hasn’t even started negotiating a Trade Deal and now she has thrown away all her advantages such as £39 billion. It has been obvious from the start that she had no intention of taking the UK out.
The vote in Parliament on December 12 now looks perilously close with 220 traitorous conservative MPs pledged to support her proposed Agreement. It is essential that UKIP now makes itself heard and seen especially as it is unified in wanting clear unencumbered Brexit.
As Time Martin said on Question Time last night we now need to leave with “no deal” and only then will the EU want to negotiate. Our leader Gerard has been getting increased publicity and visibility in the MSM. His controversial appointment of Tommy Robinson is in some UKIP eyes either wrong or bad timing. Now that it is done UKIP should unite behind him with his unmatched credentials as an expert on Leaving.
The Robinson appointment now looks like a good move following his strong, determined and calm appearance in an interview with Matthew Wright. Look at the near 4000 comments on the video and you will see they are 100% in favour of Gerard. Many say this debate has caused them to join UKIP. I have read hundreds of the comments and I have not found one against Gerard.. So the appointment of Robinson seems to benefit UKIP rather than otherwise and we should now all support Gerard Batten.
@George If 220 Tory MPs are prepared to sign this betrayal then what does this tell us about the Tory party members and the associations in those constituencies? Not one sitting Remainer Tory MP has been de-selected to my knowledge.
If they had deselected a leading Remainer then the others would have snapped into line promptly.
That’s 220 MPs and a Prime Minister reneging on a manifesto promise. It tells us that the not really conservative party is finished with pretending to believe in democracy.. it is corrupt and dishonest and self-serving -a perfect partner in fact for the EU gangsters.
Another little manifesto promise Tories re-neged on was to get immigration down. Compare the promise with this. https://voiceofeurope.com/2018/11/un-migration-pact-will-flood-europe-with-59-million-migrants-mep-warns/
If a majority of members of constituency Conservative groups are remainers,. MPs such as Soubry. for instance,, are probably secure from deselection. Her party chairman moved against her. but that resulted in his ‘resignation’, while she is probably more secure than ever, at least until the next election when she must submit herself to all voters in her constituency.
@Marie Unfortunately, the plot to deselect her never really got off the ground with the plotter not getting the backing of the association committee. We don’t really know what the association party members wanted as they were not consulted.
https://order-order.com/2018/07/30/soubry-defeats-deselection-plot-as-association-chairman-resigns/
Yes, I accept your logic, she is stronger than ever but the acid test will be the next election.
Brexit supporting Tories will soon have to make their minds up where their loyalties lie as they will never ever get another chance to leave the EU. They can make a huge difference in achieving a clean Brexit by throwing in their membership cards in disgust at the treachery of their party.
Can their be a Conservative party member left who cannot accept that the party has no intention of leaving the EU?
Thanks Jake, I find the woman insufferable, even leaving aside Brexit and,ideally, I’d prefer her to be humiliated ay the next election but electorates are fickle and she may yet win.
TO be able to read the 4000 comments which overwhelmingly support Gerard then go to the YouTube version:—
Does anyone know who the ‘Professor of Economics’ ‘Professor of Medicine ‘ and the other professor are that Gerard says advise him in this video ?
While Toby Horton correctly praises and only a grubby plaque in Malton Market place commemorates Burke’s great integrity Toby fails ( as a party rep) to mention Burke’s scathing attack on political parties as shown on my website http://www.camrecon.demon.co.uk.
While Toby believes correctly that UKIP is full of good patriotic people he fails to understand that all political parties are part of the revolution against our ancient legal constitution in that the laws which once protected us the people (e.g the Coronation Oath Act 1688) are cancelled by the claim that a “democratically elected ” government has the “will of the people” as its legitimate authority and that this trumps or negates any other power legal or regal. A vote for any party is a hand over of power from us to them.
“The great instrument of all these changes and what infuses a peculiar venom into all of them is party. It is of no consequence what the principles of any party or what their pretensions are; the spirit which actuates all parties is the same, the spirit of ambition, of self interest, of oppression and of treachery…. in a word we have all seen …we have some of us felt such oppression from the PARTY GOVERNMENT as no other tyranny can parallel”. UKIP has also been riven by internal factions but the message still hasn’t sunk in. You can’t defeat a tyranny by consenting to its cleverly contrived mechanisms.
.The late Lord Haislham creator of the label “elective dictatorship” had similar comments about our so-called “democracy. It was the party system which enabled Heath to commit Treason and take us into the EC and the current mess. Only the re-separation of the Commons from government starts to put things right and a vote for Independents frees the people to reject Mrs May’s or any other dictatorship.
Martin Cruttwell