Today’s first letter comes from our contributor and correspondent Roger Arthur, reflecting on the unprecedented events surrounding the “Chequers Agreement” and the Government White Paper:
No 10 apparently kept David Davis and other Ministers in the dark over the Chequers agenda.
Indeed the PM seems to have briefed the Germans BEFORE putting the papers before the cabinet. Does that make the PM a Quisling?
It seems that Cabinet did not get the papers until a few hours before the meeting – i.e. after the PM’s meeting with Mrs Merkel and after the papers had been amended.
She may have hoped to bounce the Cabinet into accepting the proposals and it is surely no wonder that David Davis resigned.
So will the new Brexit Secretary be more flexible in accepting EU demands, while further neglecting the wishes of the 408 constituencies which voted to leave the EU? The PM will no doubt hope so.
Respectfully, Roger Arthur
Next, a letter from Gerald Gravett, RO of South East UKIP, on Ms May and her “Brexit” policy:
The Prime Minister’s stance regarding Brexit is abominable
She appears to be advocating a negotiating position whereby we pay about 40 billion pounds to the European Union, lose our representation and yet remain tied into much of which, by a huge majority of 1,270,000 we voted to rid ourselves of. One could easily argue that we would be better off staying put …
And this is her starting point. Where will it end.
To see her to trot off , cap in hand, head bowed in submission to Angela, waving the England flag with the red cross of St. George bleached out, was an unedifying sight to behold. And this before she presented her plan to cabinet. Grüß Gott!
I am fed up with the rebels – for that is what they are – continually telling us who voted leave that we did not know what we voted for.
They just don’t get it, even after two years of complaining and delaying.
Let me make it clear to them.
PROJECT FEAR failed. It backfired badly, as have most major Conservative decisions of the recent past. It did not work then. It will not work now.
One only has to flick through youtube to see Mr Cameron and friends warning us that we would lose the ‘benefits’ of the single market, the customs union, the EU Court of justice, Free movement of peoples – aka cheap labour and more. Far from scaring people into voting remain, it actually convinced many that we needed to leave.
Mrs May – do the honourable thing. You have two choices. Implement the decision of the people – as you promised that you would. Or walk away yourself.
We need to walk away if a good and true to the referendum result is not agreed.
Respectfully, Gerald Gravett, RO South East Region UKIP
Our correspondent Mr King has this to say about the appeals by Tories to please join or re-join the Tory Party:
We continue to see letters urging people to join the Tory Party, to influence the PM.
It is just possible that she might amend her plan, if Party membership is falling, but to suggest the opposite is asinine.
If 17.4m voters could not lead her towards a clean break with the EU, then a few more members joining are unlikely to cause her to re-consider.
Paying £39bn for compliance with the EU rule book is a bad deal. That is the issue and the sooner she accepts that the sooner we can move on.
There is little benefit in expanding a party where 65% of MPs are Remainers and where that % is not decreasing.
The more Tory membership cards that are cut up and returned to Tory HQ the better as it might just bring Mrs May to her senses, before it is too late.
Respectfully, Mr King
Gerald Gravett, RO South East UKIP, asked us to publish this excellent template letter which everybody can use. Send it to your local councillors, being mindful that ‘all politics are local’, that we want to keep the scandal that is non-stun slaughter in the public consciousness, and that there are local elections next year:
I have sent the email below to my local councillor as a resident, not mentioning UKIP.
I wonder if you would publish it as a kind of template in UKIP Daily:
“Dear Councillor ,
I write to you as my (county/local) councillor, concerning the non-stun slaughter of farm animals in the United Kingdom and to what extent your council is sympathetic towards animal welfare.
I have great concern for the welfare of all living creatures and my stance against non-stun killing is quite simply that animals should be killed as humanely as possible.
This is not only consistent with obvious veterinary and scientific research and advice, but is in keeping with the compassionate values of the British people at large.
There can be no excuse for the infliction of unnecessary suffering. None at all and several countries, including Denmark have introduced a complete ban of non-stun slaughter. To kill without stunning causes cattle to die in agony, choking on their own blood and taking about 85 seconds and up to 4 minutes to lose consciousness.
Could you please table this question formally at your next full council meeting, inform me of the venue, date and time and advise me of the response:
Does the council purchase, supply or serve through any of its departments, subsidiary organisations or sub-contractors any meat or meat derived products derived from non-stun slaughter for consumption by any persons other than those religious groups provided for in law?
Kind regards, xyz”
If people send it to their councillors, it could get a lot of publicity and be the basis of something great.
Respectfully, Gerald Gravett, RO South East Region UKIP
Finally, Stuart Gulleford sent us the text of a tweet by Lord Stoddart of Swindon, on Chequers, showing that the digits of that “agreement” is crossing not just Party lines but even the gulf between the HoC and the HoL: