Reality of our political situation means no way out of EU

From: D Harrop, Malton Street, Sheffield.

I RESPOND, belatedly, to a letter from Fred Bishop of Worcestershire (Yorkshire Post, January 3).

Mr Bishop expresses clearly and succinctly some of the impositions and restrictions imposed by the EU upon the nation states which comprise it. The member states are the EU; it cannot exist without our collective membership and acquiescence.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

The objectives which Mr Bishop points out must be broadly known to the readership of the Yorkshire Post. However, it may be worth pointing out again that the EU is a region within a global economy. Its regional capital is in Brussels and ethnicities mean nothing to it; our laws are rendered almost nugatory under its provisions. Our two – or is it three – main political parties contribute to the deliberations of the European Parliament and accept the main tenets of the globalisation thesis, whether or not they override national interests and national laws.

Mr Bishop poses the absolutely crucial question: “...why do we keep voting for British politicians that are doing exactly the opposite to the wishes of our people?” After all, as he says, “We want English politicians making English laws according to the wishes of the people of England.”

It is a myth and a delusion to believe that under a multi-party democracy we automatically have access to a decision-making procedure which will enable us, this country, to exit the EU. Can an elective majority override an elected government? The silent majority argument.

As things are there are only three parties which currently have any possibility of forming a government and they are as one in advancing the affairs of the global economy, in line with the long-term agenda as laid down by the European Parliament. While those who want to leave Europe are of divided party loyalties, it remains an objective unattainable via the ballot box.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

From: Geoff Sweeting, Station Road, Wressle, Selby, North Yorkshire.

YOUR correspondent, James Bovington (Yorkshire Post, January 27), asked that myself and other eurosceptics bring a sense of proportion into the debate over our membership of the EU. It is a pity that he doesn’t do so himself, as anyone more europhilic I have yet to meet.

I asked a simple question, which was obviously too difficult for him to answer.

What is the benefit of our membership? Unfortunately Mr Bovington couldn’t even answer this simple question. His comment about free interdependent democracies is laughable, as most of the EU laws are made by unelected officials and the British public’s views are mostly ignored.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Finally, he resorts to political speak in using small percentages rather than vast amounts of pounds for his costs. I agree that it is difficult to find the exact cost of our membership of this corrupt organisation, but if his three per cent of tax take is correct, that is a minimum of £15bn pounds per year – and rising – that it costs us. This is not far from the £40m per day that is freely quoted in the press and twice my estimate!

Your correspondent is obviously a man who knows the cost of everything and the value of nothing.

From: Don Burslam, Elm Road, Dewsbury Moor, Dewsbury.

NICK Martinek says that the glory of Europe was the independence of its nations (Yorkshire Post, January 24). We all make allowances for Mr Martinek’s extreme Europhobia but really this is a crass statement which flies in the face of history.

The lessons of two catastrophic World Wars should have taught Europeans a few home truths but apparently the moral has yet to penetrate to some quarters.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Those who deplore the excesses of the EU, whether actual or alleged, should realise this is part of the price for the delay of the continent in coming together to eliminate the divisions of the past.

This country’s particular and extreme reluctance in joining with our neighbours also had a price tag.