YP Letters: A world of opportunity outside EU

Brian Sheridan (The Yorkshire Post, April 25) asks me how many countries are comparable in stature to the countries in the failing EU. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, the US, Japan, and South Korea for starters, plus China, India, both twice the size of the so-called single market, plus Russia with huge amounts of every natural resource.

The GDP of these countries combined alone dwarfs that of the EU.

I would also like to tell him that I did not accuse the EU of murdering anyone, but an organisation who have not had their books signed off even by their own auditors for close on 20 years has got to be less than honest. Add to this the extortionate demand for an unwarranted 52 billion pounds and you can clearly see comparisons with the Mafia.

Finally could I be permitted to ask Mr. Sheridan two questions:- Can he name a successful negotiation with the EU by any British Prime Minister, even Mrs Thatcher was only partly successful?

Can he name a single case that Britain has won at the European Court of Justice?

Which somewhat proves my point about negotiating with the EU.

From: Sarah Pennie, Burnley Road, Todmorden.

I found last weekend, to my great surprise, that I agree with Tony Blair, at least on the “hard” Brexit debate. Mr Blair is encouraging people to ask their candidates in this General Election campaign if they would support us leaving the EU at any cost. Yes, we should all do that, and more.

We want to know; would the candidate, if elected to Parliament, vote for a poor Brexit deal if that is what is brought back to Parliament after the negotiations.

And if no deal is agreed at all, would they still vote for Brexit?

Our next Government needs to know they will be held to account in Parliament, and risk a vote against their deal, or failure to reach a deal, if they bring us a Brexit that harms this country.

In the last Parliament MP’s were reluctant to be seen to oppose Brexit in principle because of the referendum result. Now we are well beyond that stage. This is for real. The PM and the Ministers responsible for getting us as good a deal as the single market, or even better, have to live up to that promise.

A poor, or heaven help us, a failed Brexit deal would mean the UK economy would shrink, assuming for a moment there would still be a UK.

As a consequence, the economy could not support increased spending on the things we all vote for in a General Election – well-funded and strongly supported schools, health service, and social care.

These questions are vitally important as we decide how to vote, and we must ask our candidates exactly where they stand.

From: PJ Blackshaw, Cleckheaton.

For once I find myself in agreement with Don Burslam (The Yorkshire Post, April 24). No, the public will not be fooled a second time by all the lies told in the run up to the referendum.

There will not be mass unemployment. There will not be a huge fall in the value of the pound. There will not be a massive decline in exports. There will not be a fall in productivity.

There wasn’t an emergency budget immediately after the result because, guess what, one wasn’t necessary.

There wasn’t a huge fall in overseas confidence in the UK. Now remind me who told all these lies. Just admit it. You lost and you’re peeved.

From: Paul Rouse, Sutton upon Derwent, York.

Populism is a word frequently used in a derogatory way to decry a political policy by opponents and political commentators.

In fact, the Oxford English Dictionary definition is “political ideas and activities that are intended to get the support of ordinary people by giving them what they want”.

As I understand it, we live in a democracy, where you vote for the party or individual who you think will give you what you want.

Are these people saying that ‘ordinary people’ cannot be trusted to want the right things? Such arrogance.

Toothless on TV watershed

From: Bob Watson, Springfield Road, Baildon.

TV watchdog Ofcom has dismissed hundreds of complaints about the BBC’s Red Nose Day telethon despite unacceptable content being shown before the 9pm 
watershed (The Yorkshire Post, April 25).

Likewise it seems that, despite numerous complaints, Ofcom considers the content of the soaps, in particular Emmerdale, to be acceptable despite constant warnings being given about what is to be shown prior to the broadcasts, and the fact that small children often watch such programmes unsupervised.

Indeed, why should they have to be supervised before 9pm? Surely this is the the point of the watershed.

This toothless organisation, Ofcom, is patently unfit for purpose, and it is time that it was disbanded and replaced by something with more teeth, and a willingness to use them.