LETTERS TO THE EDITOR - TUESDAY 18TH DECEMBER 2018

The following letters were sent to INDEPENDENCE Daily over the weekend:

Sir,

Daniel Hannan (Sunday Telegraph 16-12-18) suggests that a new referendum would likely offer a choice between i) Mrs May’s deal and ii) a return to the status quo of EU membership. He suggests that many leavers would boycott the poll, resulting in a low turnout and a win for remain.

But that risk could be avoided if a minimum turnout threshold of 65% is applied. That would be very fair, since the 2016 turnout was 72% when 408 (62.8%) constituencies voted to leave the EU.

However, I do question Mr Hannan’s rationale because polls seem to show that the majority want either Mrs May’s half-baked option or no deal. Between them, their total far outweighs those who want to remain.

The point to remember is that she cannot bind the hands of future governments. So rather than abstain, many if not most of the 17.4m who voted to leave the EU, would likely hold their noses and vote for the half-baked option, in the hope that a future PM (with more backbone than backstop) will denounce her EU treaty and move on to WTO rules.

So even in Mr Hannan’s scenario, there would be no reason to abstain, because surely no leave voter would want remainers (such as Blair & Soros) to have their way.

In the unlikely event that Hannan’s fears do prove correct, then in a few years (after being dragged into the Eurozone, Schengen, and an E.U. Army) many remainers would likely be too embarrassed to admit ever having voted for such an outcome.

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

~~~ *** ~~~

Sir,

When Theresa May became Prime Minister, Paul Nuttall, then Leader of UKIP, astutely posed a question – “she can talk the talk but can she walk the walk?”. Since then more has come to light concerning her time as Home Secretary: not only did she fail to implement Party policy of limiting net immigration to the tens of thousands, but the Windrush scandal brought to light the deportation of those whom we were happy to have in the UK. Say one thing, do the opposite.

According to one report I read, Mark Carney’s policy is that there should be lots of unskilled immigrants into the UK as he sees that as a way of achieving rising GDP: GDP per capita is not a consideration. So is May dancing to the Carney tune?

Reading again the ECJ ruling on revoking Article 50 I was struck by one passage: “The court considers that it would be inconsistent with the EU treaties’ purpose of creating an ever closer union among the peoples of Europe…” We have known for a long time that the EU direction of travel is towards ever closer union but it is good to see all the ECJ judges reinforce that understanding. Further, their ruling adds the explanation that it is the purpose of all the EU’s treaties to bring it about. So, on my reading of what they have said, the Withdrawal Agreement, being a treaty, will bring the UK closer to the EU – the exact opposite of leaving. No wonder the EU elitists were so happy when Theresa-the-Appeaser agreed to it! Say one thing, do the opposite.

But why?

When events turn out contrary to the way predicted by the person in charge and expected by those of us affected, there arises the speculation of conspiracy or incompetence. Perhaps, in this case, it is a combination of the two; a conspiracy to put in place someone who would undertake the task in the knowledge that they could be relied upon to make a hash of it until there was only time for the wrong outcome. Say one thing and do the opposite.

A conspiracy? Patrick O’Flynn has written on Brexit Central that he is convinced that “there is now a private understanding between leading figures in the UK political and civil service establishment on the one hand and the Brussels elite on the other that a preferred pathway to the UK rejoining is now in place”.

Or how about May under the coercive control of the EU? If you think this is far-fetched then I strongly encourage you to read the article by David Blake, Professor at Cass Business School, published in Briefing for Brexit. He even explains that it was Theresa May who proposed “the Northern Ireland backstop, which immediately became the Achilles Heel that it was intended to be”.

Whichever way you slice it, we certainly have the answer to the question posed by Paul. May can certainly talk the talk, but as for walking the BREXIT-Walk her destination is the opposite to that for implement the Referendum result; the circuitous route has been deliberately designed to deceive, if not by her then by those pulling her strings.

Respectfully, Alan Wheatley

~~~ *** ~~~

Sir –

For publication in INDEPENDENCE Daily:

Orion the Hunter

Awake early on a crisp frosty morning,

See the stars still shining bright.

Constellations in their endless journeying

Ancient watchers of the night.