A more politically powerful Tommy Robinson is the last thing Britain needs – why hasn’t Ukip recognised that?
The Brexit betrayal march in London today is a gift for Tommy Robinson (real name StephenYaxley-Lennon) in his ambition to be acknowledged as a mainstream leader of a legitimate national organisation – Ukip.
For some idiotically irresponsible reason, Ukip’s senior party members have invited and welcomed Yaxley-Lennon into their party.
At the start of Ukip’s political life, they possibly had something to say relevant to some of the British electorate. Since the referendum, two and a half years ago, it seems they have little of any consequence to offer, and therefore their influence has dwindled.
By inviting Yaxley-Lennon into the party and losing stalwarts, Ukip has further alienated the party from the electorate.
Is this a last gasp of a failing political party? Is he going to revive Ukip? I doubt it! It’s a shame really, because it was always good to have a laugh with Nigel Farage in full flow when being interviewed. Now it appears the party have selected a mendacious extremist probably intent on using Ukip for his own ends.
There is no place in Britain for Yaxley-Lennon’s flavour of extremist nonsense, or any other form of extremism, and supposedly sane would-be politicians ought to have the ability to safeguard the British public from this know-nothing guttersnipe.
Should we support a party that employs or uses the services of an extremist thug like Yaxley-Lennon who has been “known” to the police and judiciary, both here and America, for years?
Britain has grown and remained great through the evolution of laws that safeguard the rights of the masses: world trade, free-speech and by welcoming people from other countries to live in Britain and share their culture.
There is no hope for an isolationist, extremist Britain, so let’s simply ignore extremists like Yaxley-Lennon and let them rant and rave in isolation.
Keith Poole
Basingstoke
Protests in France are a reflection of a global issue
The violent protests in France should not be seen as an isolated event. In this age of globalisation and complexity, we are grappling with a world riven with violence and strife; abject poverty; hunger and intractable political, social, economic, religious, cultural and environmental problems; cyber conflict and the war on terror.
These issues are becoming less and less amenable to old-fashioned, outdated, top-down and state interventions and governments operating at macro-level.
The intractability and complexity of such problems demands a new resilience and thinking on the part of the institutions that govern us that put peoples’ needs and demands at their heart.
Dr Munjed Farid Al Qutob
London NW2
No, Theresa May shouldn’t carry on
I don’t know if Y Kwan Loo’s letter is pure irony, but if not, it is far wide of the mark in describing Theresa May as a good communicator. She has rightly been parodied as the Maybot in her constant use of meaningless statements – remember “strong and stable” or “Brexit means Brexit”? Her lack of communication skills was clearly demonstrated during the last general election when she went around the country speaking at carefully selected venues to picked audiences – compared to Jeremy Corbyn, who addressed anyone who cared to listen. History shows how effective May’s approach was.
Patrick Cleary
Honiton
Enough of self-interested politicians
One could imagine that Amber Rudd may have spoken out in the hope that she can show she has a plan and thus has the interests of the country at heart. However, I think all we have here is another Tory politician posturing for position, and, true to form, putting her own interests above those of the nation.
If it weren’t for Jeremy Corbyn, I’d happily vote Labour, but I think he’s another example of a self-interested politician. Although I remain uncertain about the merits of a second referendum, at least it would expect people to vote in their own self-interest, and in this case it would be entirely appropriate. A way out of our current national dilemma? I hope so.
Steve Mumby
Bournemouth
We voted to get out of Europe, so what’s difficult to understand?
Theresa May went to Europe as a Remainer and begged them to help her – that’s where it all went messy. Us Leavers never had a chance. Blame May and her team of self-interested politicians for poor negotiating – not people like me for daring to want a future outside Europe. The media are now thrusting polls under our noses saying “the people” have changed their minds.
The same polls David Cameron and George Osborne used suggested overwhelming evidence for people wanting to remain in the EU. For anyone listening, have another vote if you want, I won’t be voting and for me, our democracy is finished.
Richard Paris
Midlothian
More false promises over Brexit
So Michael Howard is proposing a 12-month period during which we unilaterally allow all goods and services from the EU to enter without tariffs or tariff barriers, which then begs the question: what do we do with our trade with the rest of the world?
My understanding is that under WTO rules, terms of trade offered to one country or trading bloc have to be offered to all World Trade Organisation (WTO) members.
If this is correct then allowing 12 months of unfettered access to UK markets to the rest of the world’s trading nations would be disastrous for our manufacturers and farmers.
But this has been the standard of analysis and advice that has been coming out of the mouths of hard Brexit promoters from the very start.
S Lawrence
Enfield
