Don’t waste any more of our British money on foreigners

I CAN only presume that the letter from Dick Lindley (Yorkshire Post, February 14) which as usual was full of common sense, was written prior to the report of the International Development Select Committee (Yorkshire Post, February 13); I wonder just who selects these select committees?

They state “that more money should be given as loans”. Brilliant, let us just add it to the already millions of pounds owed to us by foreign nationals using the NHS, universities, councils and other public bodies.

The committee, chaired by that not particularly outstanding Lib Dem politician Sir Malcolm Bruce, also suggested that “the overwhelming drive – should continue to focus on lifting people out of poverty”.

Again brilliant! Since when did the money given to these countries actually go to lifting people out of poverty?

It appears to me that the bulk of the monies given to deserving countries goes either to dictators who are keeping their people in abject poverty or to leaders who always appear well fed, and are putting the monies to their choices, usually leading a profligate lifestyle.

It is invariably the charitable bodies which distribute not money but aid to where it is most needed.

I am sorry Dick, but you are swimming against a tide of Eurocrats; a government which is not living in the real world; which, it appears, could not run a stag party in a brewery; continues to put it’s own interest first and has little concern for, or understanding, of the voters who put them there.

When will your turkeys start voting for Christmas, Dick?

From: Rodney Atkinson, Meadowfield Road, Stocksfield, Northumberland.

ON a visit to London José Manuel Barroso, the president of the European Commission said: “We remain absolutely firm on the principle of free movement rights ,,, you cannot have a single market without free movement of European citizens.”

That is what the ‘country called Europe’ builders always planned which is why they chose the term ‘single market’ (not free market) to describe the process whereby the mass movement of people would break down the national borders of the EU, bypass national parliaments and force democratic nations to accept the central regulation and then legislate fromBrussels.

But this was never meant nor understood by the average Briton or Westminster. They naturally assumed that the word ‘market’ meant free trade between sovereign nation states, with national electorates remaining sovereign and free. The Anglo Saxon understanding of market economics and free trade was of course diametrically opposite to the EU’s. We naturally assume that the market means a free movement of capital, goods and services so that populations do not have to emigrate.

On this fundamental and grave distinction between the British and Continental positions the British Parliament, led by a duplicitous Edward Heath, entered this disastrous union with Europe. It was always destined to end in tears!