UKIP Logo

 

Salisbury Cathedral

Speeches and letters

Here you will find a selection of my speeches and published letters.

Out of EU and into the world - William's speech at UKIP Spring Conference on February 28th 2014

We are UKIP, the UK Independence Party, which is what we always will be. But we could as well have been called the UK Internationalist Party. Some of our opponents call us isolationists but nothing could be further from the truth. It is exactly the other way around. They are the isolationists. They want the United Kingdom to be submerged into a federal Europe, a crypto Airstrip 1 in a Eurasia. This is what Chancellor Angela Merkel who was given the full red carpet treatment by the Prime Minister, yesterday advocates for us.

The fact is that Europe is not big enough for us and the EU certainly is not. Here is a map that shows this very clearly.

Our loss of sovereignty to the EU, Open Borders and the rest are often justified on the grounds of trade, so trade is mostly what I am going to be talking about today.

* To get some facts into the discussion, exports to the European Union account for less than 10% of the UK’s economy. However, 100% of our economy is subject to the burden of EU Regulation.

* When we talk about trade, we should always bear in mind what is the glittering prize of UK exit. That is to relieve 100% of our economy and the 95% of businesses that do not export to the EU from the burden of EU Regulation.

* Now to trade, I am going to come up with a revelation that, for the Nick Cleggs and Peter Mandelsons of British politics, may be almost blinding. Here it is: We do not need to be in a political union in order to be able to trade.
Here are 2 slides showing the countries that are the top 40 exporters to people and businesses located in the European Union. These figures are from Eurostat itself, as it were the very tablets from Mount Sinai. Here is the 1st slide. At number 40 is the United Arab Emirates where, many years ago, I used to live and work which I will come to later. You will see that number 40 exported 8.3 billion euros worth of goods.

Here is the slide showing numbers 1-20. You will see the sheer volume of trade from countries who are not in the EU. And to drive the point still further here is a simplified slide showing just the top 10 in 2012, the most recent years for which we have figures . I am just going to make 3 points. The first is that 6 of the top 10 non-member state exporters to the EU in 2012 did NOT have trade agreements. Indeed they still do not.

Second, China at number 1 sold just short of 290 billion euros of exports to people and businesses in the EU. China, Mr. Clegg, is not in the EU political union. Third the sheer volume of exports of the top 10 in 2012 is noteworthy equivalent to the entire economy of Spain.

Let me be crystal clear, a country does not have to be in a Political Union in order to trade - not remotely, not at all. We would absolutely not be turning our backs on the EU markets when we leave the EU. That all trade would cease is not a tenable proposition. The facts are clear, this is complete rubbish, specious nonsense, – worse still it is deliberate deceit. There is no reason to suppose that any trade would be lost at all.

3 MILLION JOBS
* We have all heard the made-up statistic that 3 million jobs “depend” on UK trade with the EU.

* The fact is whether it be 2 million jobs or 20 million, 3 million jobs or 30 million, which “depend” on the UK’s trade with people and businesses in the other 27 Member States is not the point. Unless that is one puts forward the proposition that all trade between the UK and the EU countries would cease and cease totally on the UK leaving the EU. As we have seen that proposition is demonstrably untrue. Again, it is a deliberate deceit that does not belong in British public life to put it forward. The Nick Cleggs and Peter Mandelsons who implicitly peddle this should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

UK’S TRADE AGREEMENTS
* We all know, but not everybody does, that since 1975, all the UK's Trade Agreements have had to be negotiated by the EU Trade Commissioner. He or she has to take into account not just our interests but the interests of all 28 Member States.

EU’S TRADE AGREEMENTS
* It is worth spelling out that the EU has agreements that encompass trade with over 100 countries. In fact, we have counted 126. Mexico and South Korea are 2 of the countries with full Free Trade Agreements with the EU. After exit, a UK-EU Trade Agreement is inevitable. There will be one but I must emphasise that a trade agreement is not necessary in order to trade. We have just seen that with China, which does not have a trade agreement with the EU.

INFLUENCE
* Let’s talk about influence. Let’s see how much influence the UK actually has in the EU. We can see the UK now has just 8.24% of the votes in the Council of Ministers. And that proportion has been going down all the time. In 1973, we had 17% of the votes in the Council of Ministers. As each new country comes in to the EU, our proportion of the votes goes down. Bizarrely and against our national interest, the 3 establishment parties are all cheerleaders for yet more countries to join the European Union, - even and including Turkey.

* Now let us look at MEPs. See the diminishing proportion of MEPs from the UK in the European Parliament. In 1979, the UK had 19.8% almost 20% of MEPs. Now, in 2014, the proportion has halved to 9.5%. As for EU Commissioners, the UK originally appointed 2 of 13 Commissioners. We now appoint just one of 28. Moreover, to make changes in the EU, it requires unanimity. The agreement of 28 member states. The facts are clear, our influence is negligible and with the mantra of “influence, influence, influence”, which we hear all the time had no basis in reality.

FREE MOVEMENT OF PEOPLE
* Article 3.2 of the Consolidated version of the Treaty of on European Union lays down "free movement of persons". In consequence, over 450 million from the EU have the absolute right to live, work and settle in the United Kingdom. Sometimes, there are transitional arrangements but these are, by definition, transitional.

* This is often justified for example by Nick Clegg, when he wrote “…Are we really that keen to see the back of German Lawyers, Dutch accountants or Finnish engineers?”

* But that is not the point. We are not talking about qualified people. We are talking about the absolute right of people without qualifications, without skills, to settle permanently in the United Kingdom. Those with needed skills could have work permits just as I did many years ago in the United Arab Emirates. We should be able to choose who comes to live in our country. We cannot while we remain in the EU.

* Open Trade does not mean Open Borders. By the way, in the North American Trade Area usually known as (NAFTA) – between the USA, Canada and Mexico – there is no free movement of people.

THE EU’S SHARE OF GLOBAL WEALTH
* The EU's share of global wealth - defined as its share of world output - is in long-term decline: in 1980, the EU’s share was more than 30%, now in 2014, it is less than 20%, and it is projected to be less than 10% in 2039. I must point out that the figures for the EU include the UK economy. Without us it would be even worse.
The facts demonstrate it, EU membership is the economic equivalent of being - chained to a dying man.

TARIFF REDUCTIONS
* Now let us talk about tariff reductions. There have been big tariff reductions since the UK joined the then Common Market in 1973. This is an important point. To the UK, the EU Customs Union, is now worth a whole lot less than it was when we joined.

LARGE TRADE BLOCS
* Some people say that a country has to be in a large trade bloc in order to be able to sign trade agreements. The facts demonstrate that this is not true. It is, in fact, the other way round. Switzerland, for example, has a bilateral Free Trade with Japan. Switzerland has also a trade agreement with China. New Zealand has a trade agreement with China; Iceland has a trade agreement with China. In comparison, the European Union has no trade agreement with China and no trade agreement with Japan.

TRADE AGREEMENT WITH THE USA
The EU is currently negotiating a trade agreement with the USA. It was put to me by the BBC that the United States would only be interested in signing a trade agreement with the UK if it were a member of the EU. Let us look at the facts. . The United States currently has trade agreements with 20 countries.

* The GDP of each of the 20 countries is smaller than that of the UK. It is entirely clear - a country does not need to be in a large trading bloc in order to negotiate trade agreements. It certainly does not need to be in a political union.

* The UK should leave the EU. We would thereby regain the ability to negotiate trade agreements in our national interest. The UK would then immediately reactivate our seat at the World Trade Organisation. To say it again, our exit would relieve 100% of the UK's economy from the burden of EU Regulation.

To trade and trade successfully, we do not need to be part of a wannabe EU Superstate.
Now therefore to sum up.

* What our opponents offer is: -
the politics of misrepresentation, of deliberate deceit, of groundless threat, the politics of fear.

* We in the UK Independence Party are putting forward - on trade - as well as in everything else: -
common sense, the politics of positive, the politics of answer, and the best way forward for the future of our country.

This is why the UK should be "out of the EU, into the World".

William thanks everyone for their support in the recent UKIP MEP candidate selection process

Dear Members,
The initial MEP rankings have now been voted on by UKIP Members. I am stunned to have received huge support from UKIP Members in the South West Counties and nationally. In consequence, my ranking moved up 26 places nationally; and I have been placed as lead UKIP candidate in the South West Counties.
I am personally overwhelmed and moved by this amazing support – so many thanks to you all.
Politics is about teamwork. It is terrific to be part of our UKIP team.

We should not become involved in fuelling a sectarian civil war in Syria

I am increasingly concerned about our government's desire to arm the Free Syrian Army.
By drumming up war in Syria, I believe Cameron is following Blair's folly in Iraq.
I would like to make it clear that I am not a supporter of the Assad regime in any way, however I do have grave misgivings about providing weaponry to the so-called "rebels" in Syria.
There are a number of reasons to be concerned.
Firstly, there is increasing evidence that the rebels are committing war crimes. Both Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have accused the rebels of conducting summary executions, sectarian violence and using child soldiers.
Secondly, there is also growing evidence that the rebels have links to Al Qaeda.
The CIA has stated that a number of groups fighting on behalf of the rebels are linked to Al Qaeda, and the Iraqi government has confirmed that Al Qaeda fighters have crossed the border from northern Iraq to take up arms on behalf of the rebels.
If Cameron's scheme comes to life the British people would be arming Islamist terrorists who would likely attack British soldiers in the future.
The simple question we must ask is, would women, Christians and ethnic minorities be better off under a secular Assad or extreme Islamists? We already know the answer therefore we must not arm terrorists in Syria.
Thirdly, I fear that we will be entering a war by proxy: Britain, America and the French arming the rebels whilst the Russians and Iranians supplying the Assad regime.
This is a very dangerous situation that is dividing the world into two armed camps.
These are some of the reasons why UKIP opposes British involvement in war on Syria.
William Dartmouth UKIP MEP South West

Turkish puzzle - Letter to the economist

Sir,
I am puzzled as to why your thoughtful article describing the creeping Islamicisation of Turkey under the AK Party was placed in the "Europe" section.
Turkey is geographically 97% in Asia; moreover, the Turkish government's attitude to dissent places it 100% in the Middle East.
The UK Coalition government's policy - favoured also by the Labour Party - to be a cheerleader for Turkey's entry into the European Union is reckless. It should not be supported even implicitly by the Economist.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth, Member of the European Parliament

The Truth about Trade William Dartmouth UKIP Spring Conference, Exeter, 23 March 2013

I would like to pay tribute to the late Malcolm Wood, my friend, your friend, and, to so many of us - a mentor. It was Malcolm who began the South West UKIP Spring Rally, here in the Great Hall of Exeter University.
Now it has become the UKIP Spring Conference. For sure we have never had so many people attending a Spring Conference, as are here today.
Shimon Peres once said: "People age; Dreams are ageless."
Malcolm Wood is no longer with us, but his dream for the UK Independence Party, is slowly but surely coming true.

The Establishment accuses UKIP of being negative. I reject this. But it's understandable we just might be a little bit negative when we consider what's been going on. We have become, as it were, Flotsam and Jetsam on a roaring river, whose destination is a European Super-state: none of which, we have; either asked for, voted for, sanctioned, or approved.
But the time has now come for us to move on to the politics of positive, the politics of answer, the politics of the future. This is why today, I am going to tell the truth about Trade.
The EU and World GDP
The EU's share of global wealth is in terminal decline. Its share of world GDP was more than 30% in 1980, is around 20% now, and is projected to be just 15% in 2050.
Being in the EU is the economic equivalent of being chained to a dead man. We in the UK currently export more to the Republic of Ireland than we do to China.
We must not, as a global trading nation, focus on the low-growth, dead-end markets of the EU.
The UK Has Had No Right to Negotiate Trade Agreements since 1975. Worse still, while shackled to the EU, the UK cannot negotiate trade agreements with the fast-growing economies of Asia and the Far East.
We lost that ability - and that right - when we joined the then-Common Market in 1973 - forty years ago.
We had to vacate our seat at the World Trade Organization, the WTO. Worse, we had to renounce our trade agreements with Commonwealth countries.
Those countries, the Commonwealth countries, are expected, in the next five years, to grow at an annual rate of 7.3%. Thank you Winston. By contrast, the economy of the EU is expected to grow hardly at all. What is growing - and growing fast - is unemployment in the EU. In Spain, a country many of us here have visited, youth unemployment is 55% and rising.
Six weeks ago, the Prime Minister visited India - at the head of what was described as "a Trade Mission." In reality, a British Prime Minister is powerless to sign any trade agreement with India - or for that matter with anyone, anywhere. (David Cameron was in fact making what, in North America, they call a "howdy call.")
Trading with the EU
Of course we want to trade, and trade plentifully and profitably, with EU countries.
But we can trade with the EU without being a member of the EU, as can all the other countries in the world. Indeed, 31 other countries actually have trade agreements with the EU.

EU-Mexico Trade Agreement.
Mexico has a trade agreement with the EU. It came into force in October 2000.
Because of that trade agreement, Mexican exports to the EU pay an average tariff of just 0.39%. All Mexico's industrial exports to the EU, and more than 80% of its agricultural exports, enter the EU without tariffs. And that is Mexico - in Central America.

EU-South Korea Trade Agreement.
South Korea has a trade agreement with the EU. This was signed in Autumn 2010.
In consequence, South Korean car exports to the EU now pay an average tariff of just 5.3%. Nearly all South Korean textiles bear no tariffs at all. South Korea now sends around 10% of its exports to the EU.
Now to EFTA.
EFTA Countries

Few of us perhaps remember EFTA, the European Free Trade Association. EFTA still has four members: Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, and Liechtenstein. Switzerland is in a category of its own, which I shall talk about.
The EFTA countries have big advantages over us. They are exempt from the common external tariff and exempt from EU external trade policy. Moreover, they as a group, are free to conclude their own trade deals with other countries. For example, EFTA has trade agreements with Canada - a Commonwealth country. The EU does not, and, in consequence, Britain does not.
Moreover, the EFTA states are not subject to the Common Agricultural Policy; EU criminal justice and asylum policy; EU foreign policy and defense; and the Common Fisheries Policy. Norwegian fishermen don't have to throw away fish.
However, there are negative aspects to EFTA as well. The three EFTA countries apart from Switzerland - Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein - do make financial contributions to the EU. They also have no representation in the decision-making bodies of the EU.
But the big negative about EFTA from our point of view, is that the EFTA countries have to accept Article 45 of the Lisbon Treaty, and associated articles in the other treaties – which relate to the free movement of people. Indeed, EFTA countries are all signatories to the border-free Schengen Agreement. Something we do not want.

Switzerland.
Now to Switzerland, a special case. Switzerland is not a member of the EU; but it still exports four-and-a-half times more, per head of population to the EU countries, than the UK, which is a member.
Switzerland benefits from all of EFTA's trade agreements. In addition, it has the right to sign its own trade agreements.
Switzerland has a trade agreement with Japan, while the EU has no such agreement.
Never let anyone tell you that Britain needs to be part of a trade bloc in order to sign trade agreements. It is just, not, true.
In fact it is the other way round. It is actually harder for a bloc of 27 different countries to negotiate trade agreements. There are 27 different economies and 27 different sets of economic priorities, which have to be met first.
The idea that the diverse countries of Europe need to bolt themselves together into an artificial political construct, in order to negotiate trade deals with other countries, is phony, Europhile nonsense.
But again, the big negative is that Switzerland has to accept the free movement of people, potential mass immigration - and that, the Swiss are not liking at all.

The EU Customs Union.
The EU is a Customs Union. But, a country can be in a Customs Union with the EU without being a member. That is the agreement that three micro-countries - Andorra, Monaco, and San Marino - currently have with the EU. There are big pluses. They are not subject to the rules of the EU's Single Market. There is no free movement of people. These countries are also exempt from the Common Agricultural Policy, the Common Fisheries Policy, and do not make financial contributions to the EU.
It doesn't say much for Britain's Establishment politicians that, arguably, Andorra, Monaco, San Marino, and Liechtenstein have a better trade deal with the EU than we do. To restate, it says a lot about the sheer incompetence of our establishment politicians.
There is another country that is in the EU customs union. That country is Turkey. Turkey exports its industrial and processed agricultural goods to the EU with no tariffs - and has done so since 1996.
Perhaps, one day, somebody will take David Cameron, Ed Miliband, and Nick Clegg aside, and gently explain, that the UK is getting all the benefits, that we reasonably can, from trade with Turkey at the moment. And that is without, conferring on 73 million Turkish citizens and residents the right to live, work, and settle in the United Kingdom.
Which is what has to happen should these gentlemen get their way, and Turkey joins the EU.

Greenland.
Now let's talk about Greenland.
Greenland left the EU. It left in 1985. It can be done. So, we can do it too. So what happened to Greenland's trade with the EU? Greenland negotiated a trade agreement, allowing it to sell its fish - accounting for 90% of its entire exports - to the EU without bearing any tariffs.

Russia.
There is another compelling historic example. As we all know, the USSR fell apart, indeed broke up, in 1991.
I am sure you are agog to know what then happened to the USSR's trade agreements. This is what happened.
All the trade agreements that had been made with the former USSR, were transferred, and transferred almost forthwith, to the new country of Russia.

Maps - 3 Trading Empires.
I am now going to show you 3 slides, of 3 trading empires over the centuries.
This is familiar - the British Empire in 1921. Note that the possessions are scattered.
The Venetian Empire in 1500 – it is scattered.
The Graeco-Athenian Empire in 550 B.C. – again, the territories are scattered. The territories are not contiguous, They are not adjacent, They are not next door.

Now, the 21st-century communications revolution has resulted in what an author has called "the death of distance." In fact, the phrase "the death of distance" is the title of an entire book.
There is no reason, no reason at all - if there ever was - to be in a political union with our geographic neighbours.
Geography is not destiny. To trade, and trade successfully and profitably, we do not need to be part of a, wannabe European super-state.

Conclusion.
That I suggest we should do: is trade in our existing dysfunctional membership of the EU, for something new, based on friendship and Free Trade. Our new relationship with the EU must be fair, must be profitable, and must have our full consent. 
Since 1975, our cumulative trade deficit with the Common Market, and its successor the European Union, is an astonishing £538 billion. They need us, more than we need them.

As I said earlier, UKIP has been accused, wrongly in my view, of being negative. [I again reject that characterisation.] On the contrary, what we are putting forward - especially on Trade - is the politics of truth – and in so doing we offer the politics of positive, the politics of hope, the politics of answer, the politics of dreams coming true.
Mr. Chairman, that is what UKIP is all about.

The great European Union pretence

Steve Richards writes on 17 April: "... it is a piece of cake for UKIP to pretend from the sidelines that the UK can be independent in an interdependent world."
The UK is a member of the European Union, that is going full speed to become a superstate. Last time I looked, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Saudi Arabia, South Africa, and South Korea were fully independent states, with a smaller population than the UK and all with G20 economies.
Who is doing the pretending? It is not UKIP.
William Dartmouth MEP (UKIP, South-West England) Newton Abbot, Devon

Challenging Gregory Barker Minister of Energy and Climate Change to a public debate

Gregory BarkerDear Minister Greg Barker MP,
You are quoted in the Daily Telegraph on April 13th saying: - "...We don't need to follow UKIP into swivel-eyed rhetoric..."
Perhaps you have run out of arguments ? Fair-minded people will assume that this is the implications of your abuse.
I therefore challenge you to demonstrate that you have arguments - as well as abuse - to put forward.
I formally invite you to a Public Policy Debate with me in your own constituency on the motion that Britain leaving the EU (which is UKIP's central policy) is in our national interest.
Yours sincerely William Dartmouth.
MEP for the South West Counties, UK Independence Party

Remembering Malcolm

Malcolm Wood was a man of intelligence, charm, drive and wit – and a friend. In UKIP, he was a teacher and mentor. I had complete trust and confidence in him and knew that these would never be compromised. I owe him a lot and always will. We spoke at length on the Friday before the weekend when he passed away and had planned to meet up shortly.
I therefore learned of Malcolm’s sad and sudden death with grief and a huge sense of personal loss. Men like Malcolm are rare and rarer still in one’s own life. I leaned heavily upon Malcolm's goodwill and knowledge to help me do my job for the South West and for UKIP. Malcolm’s profound understanding of the EU dimension and of everybody in UKIP have been invaluable.
Malcolm was respected and admired in the South West, which he loved, and throughout the country for his warmth and his abilities.
To me, what Malcolm and UKIP are about, are almost one and the same - A deep love of our country and its traditions, fair play, respect for Britain ’s institutions and an inherent antipathy to those who threaten all of these, and our ideals.
Malcolm’s enthusiasm for the cause was boundless, as was his capacity for work. He was a figure of real standing.
His death is a huge blow, not just to his wife Jenny and family and friends, but to all of us who knew and admired him.
I am honoured to be able to call Malcolm my mentor and friend, and more honoured still that he gave me his friendship - He will be sorely missed by us all.
William

Euro-military clampdown threat to Britain

British Spring faces EU reprisal - Tanks and Kalashnikovs after Christmas! William is interviewed on Five Live.

Through the looking glass

Speech in Strasbourg - Doha negotiations 12.09.11
Mr. President,
There was a British author called Lewis Carrol who wrote a rather famous book "Alice in Wonderland" and this book had a sequel "Alice though the Looking Glass".
In that book there is a passage where the Red Queen tells Alice "The rule is, jam yesterday and jam tomorrow but never jam to-day.’ Alice said "But it must happen sometimes that there is “jam to-day”,’ To which the Queen said and here I paraphrase: "No, there is never jam to-day."
Well that is rather like the EU and the successive Doha Rounds. We do never get the jam.
There is a reason for this.
The Parliament's own Library briefing states that the focus of the Doha Round was to be on Development.
Now for most developing countries the critical aspect of the Doha Round is Agriculture. Around three quarters of the population of developing countries reside in rural areas and a majority depend on agriculture.
The European Union's Common Agricultural Policy or CAP is equivalent to about 80 billion US dollar per year. This huge subsidy is a distorting factor in world food markets. It erodes the fair operation of the market in food, generates export dumping, and damages the ability of farmers in the developing world to earn a living.
I must further point out that a disproportionate amount of the CAP goes on subsidising the growing of sugar beet. This crop grown in the developed world can never be fully competitive without subsidy with sugar cane.
It is the continuance of the CAP in its present form which sabotages a proper result from the Doha Round. What then are the prospects for meaningful reform of the CAP?
The answer is that there are too many politicians in the European Parliament who are opposed to a meaningful reform of the CAP - it is just not going to happen.
No meaningful reform of the CAP means no meaningful outcome to the Doha rounds.
Thank you.
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

One sided immigration is harming Britain

William replies to a letter in the St. Ives newspaper.
On immigration Mr Pearce writes “ …We needed them (immigrants) as there weren’t enough of us willing or able to do all the jobs available – in care homes, plumbing, fruit and vegetable picking etc. … “ Maybe. But in the UK at the moment there are over 2.45 million unemployed. Even if there are or were shortages in certain occupations. Why should that confer the automatic right to live and settle permanently in the UK for those immigrants, and their families and extended families?
Years ago, when I was in my twenties, there was a shortage in the Middle East, in Abu Dhabi, of Accountants. I am a Chartered Accounted and I lived in Abu Dhabi on a two-year contract to work as an accountant. After the two years of the contract were up I had to leave. Why do not similar rules apply in the UK?
The reason is we cannot apply these rules or similar. Britain’s continuing membership of the EU means that over 450 million citizens of EU member states have the absolute right to work and live here – and since May - to Benefits. We are in effect stuck with Open Borders.
Mr Pearce goes on to say “…UK citizens are looking for jobs in the rest of the EU…. “This argument is a non-starter. There are at least 600,000 Polish citizens in the UK. By contrast the number of UK citizens working in Poland is less than 4,000 – not even one percent. The EU’s rules on Free Movement work substantially to the disadvantage of the UK.
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

The European arrest warrant

Dear Sir,
Lib Dem MEP Mr Graham Watson has been vociferous in his support for the much maligned European Arrest Warrant. Indeed he gone so far as to state publicly that the UKIP opposition to it means that we are "the friends of criminals".
I wonder how Mr Watson reconciles this statement with the decision of his party to give prisoners the right to vote in British Elections.
The right to vote has been hard won over centuries but here we have Mr Watson and his supporters willing to hand this right to people serving prison sentences for crimes such as murder,rape and arson.
When people commit a crime they rightly forfeit the right to participate in society.To think otherwise is contrary to the wishes of all right minded people.
So Mr Watson wants to give criminals the vote and yet at the same time support the EAW which sees British citizens carted off the foreign prisons for months or even years without the protection of British Law.
It may interest Mr Watson to know that Dame Neville Jones has written to me in her capacity as a Home Office Minister to say that the Government is committed to a full review of the whole extradition process.
Yet again Mr Watson and his colleagues in the Lib Dems show they are completely out of touch with the wishes of people in the South West
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
The Coalition has scrapped Control Orders in their original form.
We should remember only 8 people (source BBC) are currently subject to a Control Order. The total of people who have ever lived under a Control Order since their inception is just 45.
By contrast 60 Million people in the UK are potentially subject to the European Arrest Warrant. It is the European Arrest Warrant that does away with the judicial safeguards established over centuries of British history, and abolishes the Presumption of Innocence.
Incredibly, the Coalition has done nothing about the European Arrest Warrant.
Of course the Liberal Democrats who want a Federal Europe strongly support the European Arrest Warrant and indeed sponsored it in the first place.
Somehow the Liberal Democrats can still call themselves "the Party of Civil Liberties".
The Coalition must suspend the European Arrest Warrant forthwith. Scrapping Control Orders was a mistaken priority.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
Lib Dem MEP Mr Graham Watson has been vociferous in his support for the much maligned European Arrest Warrant. Indeed he gone so far as to state publicly that the UKIP opposition to it means that we are "the friends of criminals".
I wonder how Mr Watson reconciles this statement with the decision of his party to give prisoners the right to vote in British Elections.
The right to vote has been hard won over centuries but here we have Mr Watson and his supporters willing to hand this right to people serving prison sentences for crimes such as murder,rape and arson.
When people commit a crime they rightly forfeit the right to participate in society.To think otherwise is contrary to the wishes of all right minded people.
So Mr Watson wants to give criminals the vote and yet at the same time support the EAW which sees British citizens carted off the foreign prisons for months or even years without the protection of British Law.
It may interest Mr Watson to know that Dame Neville Jones has written to me in her capacity as a Home Office Minister to say that the Government is committed to a full review of the whole extradition process.
Yet again Mr Watson and his colleagues in the Lib Dems show they are completely out of touch with the wishes of people in the South West
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
Your rightly draw attention to and condemn the Extradition Act 2003 and the European Arrest Warrant (23rd. August 2010, News and Comment”).
In so doing you claim that “The Coalition was not responsible for the legislation that has created automatic extradition”. In a purely technical sense that may be so as Parliament was obliged to introduce and pass the Act by an EU Directive; and, under European Law which trumps British law on this, could not refuse so to do.
The passage of the Directive through the European Parliament was guided by a Liberal Democrat MEP (Graham Watson) and was enthusiastically supported by the votes of Liberal Democrats, Labour and Tory at every turn. Nick Clegg was one of those supporting the measure as an MEP.
Only UKIP has consistently opposed the measure from its inception.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
Your issue of January 7th devotes an Article spread over 2 pages and the main Editorial to Control Orders.
This is although - even according to your own Article - Only 45 people have ever lived under a Control Order.
By contrast you have nothing to say about the European Arrest Warrant . Nearly 60 Million people in the UK are now subject to the European Arrest Warrant which not only does away with
The judicial safeguards established over centuries , but also abolishes the presumption of innocence.
It is the European Arrest Warrant that to quote your Editorial “ …undermine(s) this country’s liberal tradition” .
Of course people who want a Federal Europe like the Liberal Democrat Party support the European Arrest Warrant whatever its impact on the liberties of us all .
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
Mr Julian Assange,the head of Wikileak,has been arrested in London under the European Arrest Warrant.
Mr Assange and his lawyers will now discover that a British court will be powerless to prevent his extradition to Sweden – irrespective of whether Mr Assange is innocent or guilty.
The court will hear no evidence,he will not be able to speak on his own behalf and the whole charade will be reduced to a mere bureaucratic exercise. The presumption of innocence is no more.
The European Arrest Warrant was pushed through the European parliament by the Lib Dems, the so-called party of Civil Liberties. It flies in the face of centuries of British tradition and fair play. Yet the Lib Dems continue to hail the European Arrest Warrant as a triumph.Nothing could better show how the Lib Dems’ near-fanatical support for a European super-state runs counter to Britain’s liberties.
I have no knowledge of whether Mr Assange is guilty or not.But as the UK Independence Party has warned, the potential exists for the European Arrest Warrant to be used to silence political dissent.
In cases such as those of Mr Assange, the European Arrest Warrant has reduced British courts to checking that forms have been filled in correctly. Objective evaluation of the evidence by the British court is no more.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
Mary Riddell writes “ The presumption of innocence , due process, open justice and the rule of law are…the four pillars of this democracy… ”
Very true . How odd therefore that Ms. Riddell is so exercised by Control orders under which – according to Ms. Riddell herself – just 9 people are held . By contrast Ms. Riddell has nothing to say on the European Arrest Warrant by means of which almost 60 million UK Residents are liable to be carted off to prison in Eastern Bloc countries.
The European Arrest Warrant currently places at risk the liberties of us all .
Kate Ironside’s column today (15/11) was devoted to reviewing Lib/Dem MEP Graham Watson’s book about his activities as a group leader in the European Parliament. Yet on the same page there appeared a scurillous letter from Mr. Watson making an unprovoked attack on fellow SW MEP the Earl of Dartmouth (UKIP). So we had a leading politician on one side of the page demonstrating guttersnipe tendencies on the other.
Mr. Watson likes to be known as the ‘godfather’ of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) which he steered through the European Parliament and is very proud of it. Unfortunately for him and more importantly for the often innocent victims of this ill-devised draconian legislation there have been many abuses of it because of its ability to remove without trial British people to some very unpleasant legal regimes within the EU.
Lord Dartmouth and other UKIP MEPs have done much good work in taking up several of these outrageous cases. In a recent letter here Mr. Watson praised the EAW and attacked Lord Dartmouth who in turn defended himself in a positive reply published here a few weeks ago.
Now, out of the blue, comes Mr. Watson’s letter (15/11) trying to make schoolboy fun of Lord Dartmouth and also insulting him by saying “he might one day make a half decent MEP”. Lib/Dem politicians should not attempt humour. It’s not in their DNA and simply reveals an innate chippiness. What they are good at, though, is sanctimony and Mr. Watson concluded by claiming that as an MEP he is “making sure the EU works for the South West”. Mr. Watson should by now surely realise that the people who think the EU benefits this country are in a shrinking minority.
Ironically M/s Ironside’s column about him was headed “Many constituents just don’t seem to get the EU”. I believe they do but not in the way she or he think.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
Giving prisoners the vote surely flies in the face of the vast majority of British citizens who are rightly outraged at the idea. It overturns 140 years of British law that makes it clear that the right to vote is not a Human Right but a Civil Right.
Yet again a British government is seen to be helpless in the face of European Union legislation. How can we on the one hand grant the right to vote to prisoners and on the other support the European Arrest Warrant which can see British citizens carted off to some European prison without trial for months or even years on the flimsiest of evidence ?.
Time to listen to the people Mr Cameron and stand up to the EU.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
I think it fair to say that Lib Dem MEP Graham Watson (letter Oct 16) just does not get it.Yet again he launches into a defence of the European Arrest Warrant and calls those who oppose it as the friends of criminals.
He also accuses myself and the UK Independence Party of playing politics with this issue to the detriment of UK citizens.
This is what Mr Watson does not get.It is to the detriment of British citizens to be arrested without any evidence of wrongdoing being placed before a British court and summarily carted off to languish in a foreign prison without charge or trial for months or even years.
Mr Watson claims that the EAW has been used to successfully extradite murderers and terrorists.But we have always managed to extradite criminals from abroad thanks to treaties between sovereign states.Indeed Britain has been a member of Interpol since 1923.
UKIP is not against bringing people to justice to face crimes they may have committed.We are against the centuries of hard won judicial rights being trampled on or ignored.That is not the British way.It is the way for people like Mr Watson who lives for the day when Britain and all its traditions is subsumed into a European super-state.
Mr Watson also calls me a hypocrite for voting against the Fair Trial law in the European Parliament.This was to ensure that people facing charges in foreign courts should have a translator.What MrWatson does not say was this was something that was missed out of the EAW when it was introduced.We in UKIP voted against the whole concept of the warrant not just the bits they had forgotten to put in.
And it is a bit rich to be called a hypocrite by a Lib Dem .Isn't this the Party that pledged never to support Trident,never to cut Child benefit payments and never even consider nuclear energy.Now that IS hypocrisy.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
Lib Dem MEP Mr Graham Watson has been vociferous in his support for the much maligned European Arrest Warrant. Indeed he gone so far as to state publicly that the UKIP opposition to it means that we are "the friends of criminals".
I wonder how Mr Watson reconciles this statement with the decision of his party to give prisoners the right to vote in British Elections.
The right to vote has been hard won over centuries but here we have Mr Watson and his supporters willing to hand this right to people serving prison sentences for crimes such as murder,rape and arson.
When people commit a crime they rightly forfeit the right to participate in society.To think otherwise is contrary to the wishes of all right minded people.
So Mr Watson wants to give criminals the vote and yet at the same time support the EAW which sees British citizens carted off the foreign prisons for months or even years without the protection of British Law.
It may interest Mr Watson to know that Dame Neville Jones has written to me in her capacity as a Home Office Minister to say that the Government is committed to a full review of the whole extradition process.
Yet again Mr Watson and his colleagues in the Lib Dems show they are completely out of touch with the wishes of people in the South West.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
Graham Watson, the Liberal Democrat MEP and "Godfather" of the European Arrest Warrant (EAW) consistently states "...It (EAW) has brought justice to the perpetrators of murder, rape and terrorism...."
It is a pity for the innocent victims of the European Arrest Warrant that nobody seems to have told Graham Watson and Nick Clegg that the primary purpose of legal systems is to protect people from random arrest - not to have them locked up without Trial on flimsy evidence.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Dear Sir,
Your rightly draw attention to and condemn the Extradition Act 2003 and the European Arrest Warrant (23rd. August 2010, News and Comment”).
In so doing you claim that “The Coalition was not responsible for the legislation that has created automatic extradition”. In a purely technical sense that may be so as Parliament was obliged to introduce and pass the Act by an EU Directive; and, under European Law which trumps British law on this, could not refuse so to do.
The passage of the Directive through the European Parliament was guided by a Liberal Democrat MEP (Graham Watson) and was enthusiastically supported by the votes of Liberal Democrats, Labour and Tory at every turn. Nick Clegg was one of those supporting the measure as an MEP.
Only UKIP has consistently opposed the measure from its inception.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth MEP UK Independence Party

Daily Telegraph
Sir,
Graham Watson, the Liberal Democrat MEP and “Godfather” of the European Arrest Warrant, consistently states that: “It has brought justice to the perpetrators of murder, rape and terrorism.”
It is a pity for the innocent victims of the European Arrest Warrant that nobody seems to have told Mr Watson – or Nick Clegg – that the primary purpose of legal systems is to protect people from random arrest – not to have them locked up without trial on flimsy evidence.
William Dartmouth MEP

Daily Mail.
Dear Sir,
Just when will David Cameron and the Conservative Party begin to stand up to the European Union and defend British citizens and British interests?
Britain is today (July 27) expected to opt in to the European Investigation Order ( EIO) which allows any member state of the European Union to demand details of DNA, fingerprints and the monitoring of mail and bank accounts on any UK citizen SUSPECTED of being guilty of a crime - no matter how minor.
The EIO also gives the police forces of EU Member states the right to demand surveillance and investigations on UK citizens. Moreover this system can only be used by the prosecution and not by those seeking to prove their innocence.
This measure is not even being debated by Parliament. How can this be? When in opposition the Conservatives were strongly against the EIO. They condemned it as "showing a relish for surveillance and a disdain for civil liberties". But the Conservatives have a long record of making euro-sceptic noises before elections.
The EIO works alongside the European Arrest Warrant which permits British citizens to be carted off to foreign prisons for months. Again this is something the British courts are powerless to prevent.
Lurking on the horizon is the Stockholm Programme; yet another EU programme that seeks to impose a common European law on all member states even though it will lead to a much lower standard of Law and individual protection than UK citizens currently enjoy.
William Dartmouth MEP

UKIP conference speech Torquay 2010

Letters and correspondence

Open Letter to Nick Clegg
Letter to Nick Clegg
Sir,
The May 2010 Liberal Democrat Manifesto states "...We believe that it is in Britain’s long-term interest to be part of the euro...."
Do you still support the principle that Britain should join the Euro? The timing is a separate matter.
Yours sincerely,
William Dartmouth

Independent 27 June.
Dear Sir,
Prime Minister Cameron is guilty of empty rhetoric even before the G20 talks begin in Toronto.
He tells the Canadian press that he wishes the UK to break free from the trading restrictions of the Single European Market of which we are part and set up bilateral agreements with other parties.
(The Independent June 25, 2010)
This is a laudable aim. The UK is one of the great trading nations of the world. However Mr Cameron should know that so long as the UK remains in the European Union this is impossible.
We are trapped by Treaty in a system where the European Commissioner handles all international trade agreements for the 27 member states- whatever their conflicting interests. The UK cannot represent itself on the World Trade Organisation (WTO). By contrast the former British colony of Hong Kong is able to do so.
In the new era of austerity Britain needs - more than ever - to export its goods and its skill throughout the world in order to boost the economy and pay our way.
The best solution would be for the UK to leave the EU and enter then into a free trade agreement following the EFTA model. As a bigger economy than the EFTA nations, our agreement would be more favourable.
William Dartmouth MEP

Sunday Times 21st March.
Sir, Sunday's profile of (Baroness) Catherine Ashton describes the lady as having had "...a career as an administrator for the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (CND)....".
It went a great deal further than that. Having been one of just 4 paid CND employees, Ashton subsequently became Treasurer and then Vice Chairman of CND.
The point is that the lady's judgement has been proved palpably and demonstrably wrong. Moreover at the European Parliament Hearings on the new Commission, it was clear (as was said of the Bourbons) "she has forgotten nothing: she has learnt nothing".
If the views of Ashton and her CND pals had prevailed, the Berlin Wall would still be there and Eastern Europe would not now be free.

Financial Times 19th March.
Sir, David Gardner describes the UK Independence party as “openly xenophobic” (March 17). Not so, we strongly favour friendship and free trade.
Mr Gardner goes on to say Europe (he actually means the European Union) “is ... an opportunity not a threat”. And this on the same day that the Financial Times leads with “Brown wins delay on hedge fund vote”. The article goes on to say “London’s hedge funds and private equity industry won a last-minute reprieve”.
The UK’s continued membership of the EU subjects British business and commerce to waves of destructive regulation which, in the FT’s example – hedge funds, threatens their very existence within the UK.

"Disclosure"
Dear Baroness Ashton,
Re: Your Disclosure to the Foreign Affairs Committee
I am writing to you in the matter of your response to me at your hearing before the Foreign Affairs Committee in the European Parliament on January the 11th.
I pointed out that you had been one of 4 paid employees of CND and then Treasurer of CND and this had NOT been "...disclosed on your Personal Details...." circulated to the Foreign Affairs Committee.
You answered "...My employment record is a matter of public record. It has been published all the way through my career.... you can look, I think, probably in Debrett's...."
I have looked at Debrett's and although it does state you were "an administrator for CND 1977-79", Debrett's does NOT mention your tenure as Treasurer of CND which ended only in July 1983. You were then elected Vice-Chairman of CND. I would point out that the Berlin Wall came down in 1989.
May I ask you to disclose properly your past involvement with CND?
Yours sincerely,
William (The Earl of) Dartmouth MEP

UKIP conference speech Southport 2009

SpeechMy name is William Dartmouth and I have the honour to have been elected as a UK Independence Party MEP for the South West Counties.

With respect to Lancashire, which is where we are now, the South West is a beautiful part of the world with a significant tourist industry. It should be hugely encouraging to the South West Tourist Board that no less a person than Godfrey Bloom took a week’s holiday in Devon in August!

I should add that Gloucestershire and Wiltshire, which are not normally thought of as being in the South West, are also in the Electoral Area. This is yet another example that in the Never-Never Land of the European Union, nothing is ever quite the way you think it is.

In the European Election in the South West Counties, the UK Independence Party got just over 340,000 votes – 15,000 more than previously and coming 2nd overall. We also came first in, amongst other places, Torbay, North Devon, Torridge and the city of Plymouth. But none of the 6 people standing on the UKIP list, not Trevor Colman, not myself, not Gawain Towler, not Dr. Julia Reid, not Councillor Alan Wood, not Stephanie McWilliam – would attribute this success to anything intrinsic in ourselves. We would attribute it to 2 factors.

Firstly, Nigel Farage’s inspirational leadership – and one aspect of that in particular – his brilliant and compelling expositions of the arguments on the media. So along with every other candidate; thank you Nigel.

Secondly, I would attribute our success to something else. The UK Independence Party may or may not be a small political party, but we do have a Big Message - in fact the Biggest Message in British Politics. That Britain would be Better Off outside the European Union. Not only better off, we would be safer because by leaving the EU we would regain control of our borders.

Now let me say something about our future. For the UK Independence Party I have always thought that and have said before; our party would be the beneficiary of what may be called “the Tomato Ketchup Syndrome” – first NOTHING, then NOTHING, then the LOT – that is what will happen for the UKIP.

And when people ask me, will Britain really leave the European Union, I respond with just 3 words. YES, we WILL. And not only will we leave the EU – it is inevitable.