Empty threat from EU boss on migration

1
Have your say

From: Dick Lindley, Birkwood Farm, Altofts, Normanton.

I WAS astonished to read that Jean-Claude Juncker, our glorious new EU Ruler, should have the temerity to tell our democratically-elected Prime Minister that we, the British, are not allowed to curb the number of EU workers coming to Britain taking British jobs away from British citizens.

Furthermore, if we do try to restrict immigration from the EU, then he says he will see to it that there will be severe consequences for the financial centres of Britain.

I am presuming that he means some sort of punitive tax to be levelled against the financial centre of the UK, the City of London.

I do not think for one moment that he is preparing an invasion of the UK to enforce his will, that has been tried by previous European leaders and failed, but it seems to me that his message is that if we restrict the free movement of labour from the EU, then somehow our financial institutions will suffer from a curb on the free movement of capital into and out of the UK which would be ruinous for the UK economy.

It is even more astonishing that this man should have the nerve to lecture the democratically-elected government of the UK 
about its moral duty, when we consider that during the time when he was the Premier of Luxembourg, that country became a tax haven for international companies, who by being registered in Luxembourg, avoided paying billions of pounds in corporation tax to the UK Government.

It is time to consign the treaties of Rome, Maastricht and Lisbon to the smallest room of the house where they will at least serve some useful purpose, declare unilateral independence and leave this corrupt edifice forthwith.

From: Trev Bromby, Sculcoates Lane, Hull.

I WOULD urge Nigel Farage, if I was to meet him, not to blindly accept defectors from the so called main parties as these MPs (Monetary Predators) could well be infiltrators commissioned to dismantle Ukip from within.

One such “reckless” defector has already voiced that he is at odds with some of Nigel’s policies.

Yet another, rightly or wrongly, is out to discredit the Ukip general secretary.

My advice to Mr Farage is to get a stab vest, wear it front to back and read the story about the Trojan Horse.

From: Richard Billups, East Avenue, Rawmarsh, Rotherham.

SURPRISE, surprise. Sir Bernard Ingham is supporting the Conservative Party (The Yorkshire Post, December 10). I do not belong to any political party because they all waste money like it is going out of fashion.

The annual party conference for example, where the converted are preached to, is a total waste of money. It is like watching a home crowd at a football match cheering every move by their own team.

As for some parties being richer than others, it is a bit odd that we follow America in this, their Tories usually get large donations from the bankers and so do our Conservative Party. As bankers now have a reputation worse than a double glazing salesman, I would keep quiet about it if I was them.

From: Dr Glyn Powell, Bakersfield Drive, Kellington, Goole.

ANOTHER month and yet another crisis. This time in immigration controls and granting of British citizenship to undesirables.

It’s almost as if the powers-that-be claim a crisis, so as to be seen by some of the gullible amongst the electorate to be seen to be doing something but in reality doing nothing.

The Minister responsible for this latest debacle is hapless Home Secretary Theresa May. This lady has proved time after time that she is not fit to occupy such a key post. As immigration has soared well above Tory targets under her watch, she has the gall to blame Labour who have not held office for four and a half years.

Meanwhile Yvette Cooper claims Labour will tighten immigration controls. Both May and Cooper are living in cloud cuckoo land as immigration will continue to soar, unless the UK withdraws from the EU.

Questions of Royal descent

From: John Riseley, Harcourt Drive, Harrogate.

THE Rev Barrie Williams (The Yorkshire Post, December 12) is right to suggest that Elizabeth of York outranked Henry Tudor, but I don’t think we need to overturn primogeniture to assert this.

Henry Tudor’s claim to the throne was based upon his descent from Edward III via the latter’s third son, John of Gaunt.

Elizabeth of York was descended from Edward III via his second, third and fourth sons (the second and fourth being Lionel of Antwerp and Edmund of Langley).

The legitimate lines of descent from the first son, Edward of Woodstock (The Black Prince) were already extinct.

The rules of primogeniture give precedence to the descendants of the second son over those of the third and fourth.

Coincidentally, the doubt raised by the mismatch with Richard III’s Y chromosome applies to the lines of descent via the third and fourth sons but not the second. The principal link through that troubled period to the modern monarchy is unaffected.