• Farage – Rogers: Correspondence.

      0 comments

    Dear Mr Rogers,

    It’s taken 23 years. We have endured ridicule and hostility, been insulted and ignored, fought many losing battles and trudged endless streets. We’ve had some really tough times, especially in the past year.

    Finally, on June 23rd, we achieved our goal, and won the backing of a clear majority of the country’s voters to leave the EU. “Congratulation” seems too small a word. Our members – you – have been responsible for this; no one else. I salute you.

    But the fight is not over. This is perhaps the beginning of the end; but it is not the end. UKIP’s role has probably never been more necessary.

    The mandate is now in the hands of the Conservative government, under a new leader yet to be identified. Already, we hear that perhaps we won’t be able to end free movement, that maybe we will need to compromise to achieve “access to the single market”, that it’s all going to be terribly difficult.

    Meanwhile the losing side wastes no opportunity to try and undermine the public’s confidence.

    Please stick with us. Your membership is due, and we need your help to make sure that this historic decision is delivered, without back-sliding.

    We also need to stay active with street stalls and leafleting in our local communities, countering “Project Fear” and “Regrexit”, and explaining to the public why Brexit is a bright and brilliant opportunity.

    Please renew your membership, and help us ensure that we pass on a free, independent country to our children and grandchildren.

    Yours sincerely,

    Nigel Farage, Leader, UKIP.
    ____________________________________________________________________________
    Dear Mr Farage,

    Thank you for your thanks.

    I would agree with you that the fight is not over. As for UKIP? It most definitely has a role to play.

    As you state, a new leader of the Tories has yet to emerge. You go onto state “Already, we hear that perhaps we won’t be able to end free movement, that maybe we will need to compromise to achieve “access to the single market”, that it’s all going to be terribly difficult.”

    To this I would reply that withdrawal from what is now the European Union after 43 years from what was in 1973 the European Community IS going to be terribly difficult, will take years and cannot be done without negotiation and some form of compromise. That compromise however need not be with our fellow EU members (NB; we are still in the EU) but HAS to be with reality.

    The FACT is that there is but one acceptable way out of the EU for the UK and this is called “Flexcit”. I do hope you or a member of your staff have download a copy and have either read it or taking the time to do so.

    It is my belief – that Flexcit offering membership of the EEA (Single Market) is essential not least to provide the international currency and stock markets with the assurance and of course the UK’s creditors – of which there are many – of a clear indication of the way the Brexit strategy pans out.

    The alternative to Flexcit is WTO default. This of course would enable the implementation of your oft stated “Australian style points based system.” Allow me to draw your attention to just some of the problems associated with this. Disentangling the UK from the EU’s thousands of regulations and directives is an immensely complex task. In addition, since the creation of the “Single Market” much of the necessary bureaucracy facilitating inter EU state trade is handled not by the members states themselves but by a centralised bureaucracy in Brussels. Thus the member states have lost the ability to deal with this trade themselves. This of course as you know only too well was all part of Jean Monet’s grand plan for a United States of Europe. It is quite simply IMPOSSIBLE for the UK to proceed from the EU directly to WTO default in one stage – UNLESS special transitional arrangements were put in place by the EU to perform the essential bureaucratic tasks of inter UK – EU trade. They would do this – for a fee for the following reasons:
    1. The alternative would be the economic collapse of the UK which of course would have severe knock on effects for the EU.
    2. The UK’s and the EU’s creditors – of which there are many would simply NOT allow it! These institutions do want their money back at some point!
    3. The USA. They like the UK and EU’s creditors have a vested interest in seeing the EU and the UK do not undergo an economic collapse as the US economy – which has itself a huge sovereign debt – would be very seriously affected. You will have noted the presence on the scene of the US Secretary of State. This is because the USA feels they are an interested party in the negotiations. There is very good reason for Mr Kerry to take this opinion. Doubtless much of the communication in the run-up to Brexit negotiations between the UK and the EU are being done through the diplomatic channels of the USA.

    Supposing just for a moment a UK government was prepared to consider WTO default plus EU assistance; what would be the results? A severe downturn as the City of London requires Single Market membership to be maintained.

    During the campaign, those campaigning for the UK to remain in the EU suggested that the UK’s economy and inter-alia, currency and stock markets would be adversely affected to a greater or lesser degree should Brexit take place. I think we were all expecting a fall on both sterling and the FTSE 100 and 250 should the vote go the way it did. Personally, I had expected greater falls than actually took place.

    Now let us address the likely future role of UKIP – assuming Brexit takes place.

    It is obvious that should Brexit take place the UK will be a member of EFTA and the EEA. I would draw your attention to the Liechtenstein compromise vis-à-vis free movement of people. You will note that there is provision for the so called emergency brake. The important difference between the “emergency brake” allowed to EFTA/EEA members and the UK had it voted to remain in the EU under the terms negotiated by David Cameron was that whilst the decision to apply the emergency brake was the sovereign preserve of the European Commission for EFTA/EEA members it is a sovereign decision of those sovereign states! It has however to be noted that the EFTA/EEA states to have to accept the principal of the free movement of people although they have some power to limit it. This of course is a compromise. It is however a compromise that cannot acceptably be avoided due to the even more unacceptable alternative!
    So what should be UKIP’s future role?

    In your recent entertaining speech in the European Parliament, you suggested that the UK may not be the last state to leave the EU. This may very well be the case. In these circumstances such a state or state would follow the same path as the UK – EFTA/EEA. Because it is the ONLY acceptable route.

    You will of course see the danger ahead. We have a political elite in this country and also across Europe who like the idea of the EU. The danger is that this political elite, once their country’s are in EFTA/EEA, will seek to extend the competences of EFTA into an EU Mark 2!

    I will make a decision on renewing my membership shortly.

    Yours sincerely,

    Peter H. Rogers, Editor, British Gazette.