An EU exit would boost democracy

From: TW Jefferson, Station Road, Hensall, Goole.

In reply to Don Burslam and James Bovington (Yorkshire Post, November 10), I make the following points.

I don’t think anyone has argued that leaving the EU would “unleash a financial bonanza,” as Mr Burslam claims.

Sign up to our daily newsletter

The i newsletter cut through the noise

The main advantage would be to re-establish democratic governance in all areas of our lives, with financial savings as a secondary, but important consideration.

The reason that no party has led us out of the EU is because the House of Commons had a liberal-left majority for the New Labour years and they were happy to subscribe to the EU project, which came from similar roots.

The Conservative Party could not mention the subject during those years in case the airing of their differences ruined their electoral chances. UKIP, as a new, single-issue party, could not hope to make a significant breakthrough.

The electorate was largely uninterested in the subject while the economy was growing, and any opposition was met with the inference that we could lose up to three million jobs if we rocked the boat and anyway, hadn’t the EU kept the peace for half a century?

Growing dissatisfaction with the paucity of those arguments; the continuing erosion of our democracy and, latterly, the financial implications of the euro-crisis have now changed the terms of political trade.

Mr Bovington doesn’t feel the need to apologise for supporting the euro.

He doesn’t seem to understand that the euro “one size fits all” policy lies in ruins. Nor that it can only work with greater fiscal and political union, which no-one wants; nor that the countries that have benefited from the euro have done so at the expense of the weaker countries which must pay for it with austerity for years to come. Someone needs to apologise for it!

Very costly occupation

From: Barrie Frost, Watson’s Lane, Reighton, Filey.

At last, MPs appear to be getting a grip on reality. They have announced that finally British troops are to be withdrawn from Germany.

It is reported that half of our forces will return to the UK by 2015 and the rest by 2020. This is a step in the right direction but why have our troops to remain in Germany for another nine years?

The Government must believe that supporting the German economy for this lengthy period with outrageous amounts of our money is proper and just, yet at the same time it insists the severe financial restraints at home must be applied immediately.

It is reported that the savings from leaving Germany are estimated to be around £250m per year with an extra £650m pumped into the British economy resulting from their repatriation. Are these estimations based on just withdrawing half of our troops or are they the savings from their total withdrawal?

The British Army has been based in Germany since the end of the Second World War in 1945, a staggering 75 years. Has this unbelievably long presence of our troops in Germany really been necessary?

Does anyone have any accurate details of the whole costs of this exercise?

When Europe was finally liberated in 1945 at the end of World War Two, European countries must have recognised that Britain had done far, far more than her fair share in securing the freedoms they all cherish today, although these freedoms, sadly, according to Fifa, do not extend to England’s football team being allowed to adorn their shirts with a poppy emblem in a friendly match on the eve of Remembrance Sunday.

If the military expertise, courage and professionalism of our forces were then deemed essential for them to be based in Germany to secure the peace, surely all other European countries would be very willing to see the costs of this peacekeeping force borne entirely by them to mark their gratitude for Britain’s sacrifices.

No? If this is not the case then undoubtedly they would want to join Britain in sharing all the costs. No? Has Britain received any financial help from Europe?

Is this the one and only time that no objections would be raised to Britain occupying centre stage, to be placed in an unchallenged pole position? Of all the European countries was Britain left alone to bear this burden?

Have our politicians even tried to negotiate a proper and just sharing of the costs they so readily placed on Britain’s taxpayers and which they maintain were necessary to secure peace for everyone? If everyone benefited isn’t it reasonable to expect everyone to share in the costs?

Spot the difference

From: Barry Fost, High Stakesby, Whitby.

Never having been a politically minded person, I struggle to see the difference in any of the parties and even those who lead.

Look at the clones – Cameron, Clegg and Milliband, you tell me who is who?

What I fail to understand how they all can go on about how we have no money in this country and all the drastic unnecessary cut backs they inflict on us.

This is a country who can give billions to overseas aid and to one country at least who gives aid to others e.g. India Who now proposes to supply ground missiles at the over rated Olympics and the cost of the Olympics. MPs who still after all the ballyhoo are continuing to stick their noses in the trough after all the recent troubles. You cannot tell me this is a poor country. This Government and the previous ones ought to be hanging their heads in shame at the way some people are treated in this country.

There is no real wonder Scotland wants to get rid of us they seem to be doing quite a good job lining their pockets out of us already and surely getting much more than we do.