Tuesday's Letters: Reality of our political situation means no way out of EU

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.

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.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

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.

From: D Harrop, Malton Street, Sheffield.

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

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

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.

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!

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

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.

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.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

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

Forgotten war heroes fall victim to cuts

From: Gill O'Donnell, Burnside, Giggleswick, Settle, North Yorkshire.

What were you doing this week in 1991? Perhaps, like me, you were watching television – glued to the coverage of the Gulf War, fascinated by media coverage of missiles negotiating streets and feeling that this was more like a video-arcade game than a news broadcast.

However, perhaps you too knew someone who was there and sat in terror watching and waiting – praying that your loved one would return home and everything would go back to normal.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

This year marks the 20th anniversary of the Gulf War, but for many of the veterans, life never returned to normal. Some 53,000 British service personnel were engaged in the conflict. To date, 9,700 British veterans have suffered from a range of Gulf War-related problems, including chronic headaches, depression, fatigue and breathing problems.

Despite the fact that "Gulf War Syndrome" is recognised by other nations which took part in the conflict, the Ministry of Defence refuses to recognise Gulf War Syndrome as a medical condition. Those left ill from the conflict have repeatedly had their disabilities challenged and compensation claims rejected.

This situation is set to escalate as a result of government cutbacks. When a member of HM Services takes part in a conflict on behalf of their country, they do so knowing that they may suffer mental and physical injuries but have always been assured that the Government and the MOD will support them on their return.

Unfortunately, the reality is proving starkly different. Veterans are hounded throughout the rest of their lives to continually prove to benefit agencies that they are still eligible for support. Many are left so mentally and physically exhausted by this process that they simply give up: losing their benefit and sinking into despair and extreme poverty.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

This year veterans face the double blow of cuts to war pensions and to benefits. The National Gulf Veterans and Families Association (NGVFA), an organisation run by veterans to support those involved in Gulf War 1 and Gulf War 2 (Iraq), the ongoing conflict in Afghanistan, and all future desert conflicts, fears for the welfare of veterans as a result of the proposed government changes. The last Budget linked pensions and benefits to the Consumer Price Index instead of the higher Retail Price Index, seriously hitting the income of retired and injured servicemen and war widows. The planned changes to the benefits system will further hit the 10,000 veterans currently dependent on benefits. Many will also be hit by the intended cuts to the disability living allowance and changes to incapacity benefit.

Yorkshire is justifiably proud of its connections with HM Forces and I therefore urge readers to throw their weight behind these forgotten heroes by writing to our MPs and requesting that they intervene on behalf of those who are now being cast aside.

Let them know that this is not how we, as a civilized country, wish to treat our service veterans and their families. 1991 was not a video game – and for some the horror is continuing.

Size matters on world stage

From: R Hanson, Swallow Lane, Golcar, Huddersfield.

ON the manufacturing side, I can only think of two British companies that have the size to be truly global, Rolls Royce and BAE Systems. There are also British registered mining companies that are truly global.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Leaving banks aside for now, other British companies (and utilities for that matter) have not been allowed to grow to be world players or if maybe they have been big enough, have over the years been fragmentated by whichever body was in charge of doing this at the time in the name of competition. What competition?

Competition has been global for many decades, much more than national, but the British powers that be did not seem to grasp this. This is probably more so in finance and will be even more so as China gets into its stride. For this reason for British banks to remain independent and world players, they may have to grow bigger rather than be split up otherwise they will become prey to other world banks in the way that too much of British manufacturing industry and utilities have been to foreign concerns.

Perhaps some banks, not all, mis-read how far markets could grow and came croppers. Even so, British-registered world banks do bring a massive amount of foreign exchange into Britain which would be lost if they fell into foreign hands.

As for forcing them to split up their businesses, on a national scale they only have to hint that they will move to another country for this idea to be dropped. It would take a world government to do this and this is a long way off.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

If Britain is to retain any influence at all in the world, it cannot afford to lose any of the world players that are still registered here.

Why switching to an AV system gets my vote

From: Brendan Joyce, Blakey Lane, Thirsk.

I REFER to the recent article by Simon Reevell MP (Yorkshire Post, January 24) in which he attempts to put the case for retaining First Past The Post (FPTP) in preference to the proposed new Alternative Vote (AV) system.

Mr Reevell uses the result of the Labour Party leadership election in an attempt to illustrate what is wrong with AV. He points out that David Miliband received more first preference votes than any of the other candidates and that it was only after the other three candidates had been eliminated from the contest that Ed managed to secure more support than David. I agree. That's the whole point.

The AV election process showed that if it had been a two-horse race between the Milliband brothers then Ed would have received more support than David. A majority of those voting also preferred Ed to each of the other three candidates. Therefore Ed was clearly the candidate with the most support from the voters as a whole, that is indisputable.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

If the election had been decided on first preferences alone then David would have won. So the facts about the Labour leadership election are very simple. AV resulted in the best candidate being elected. Under FPTP the second best candidate would have been elected. AV got it right. FPTP would have got it wrong. What exactly is it about these very simple facts that that Mr Reevell and his colleagues in the "No to AV" campaign have difficulty in understanding?

Parliamentary elections are very different from party leadership contests but the advantages of AV over FPTP are identical. AV will almost always see the candidate with the most support elected.

Under FPTP, the candidate with the most support will sometimes be elected, sometimes not, depending on a number of factors which will vary from constituency to constituency.

Under AV it would no longer be necessary for electors to have to guess how everyone else is likely to vote before they can decide the most effective way to cast their own vote, no longer necessary for them to vote tactically in order for their vote to have any impact on the result.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

AV will allow every elector to indicate clearly who their preferred candidate is and also indicate which other candidates (if any) they would find acceptable should their first choice candidate be unsuccessful. What on earth is so wrong with that?

Get behind our country

From: Terry Duncan, Greame Road, Bridlington, East Yorkshire.

WHY do so many people keep knocking the UK, when they should be rallying around and getting us back on our feet?

The worst culprit is the Opposition in Westminster, the very organisation which exacerbated the banking disaster, followed by the trade unions.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

Everything should be done to restore our country to some greatness in the eyes of the world and not be led by left-wing folly of those who want to destroy our businesses and livelihoods through strikes and support for them.

Use our forests, don't sell them

From: David H Rhodes, Keble Park North, Bishopthorpe, York.

THE Government's proposed sale of public-owned forests continues the "sale of the family silver" syndrome.

As a child, I was taught that the Amazon rainforest was the lungs of the world. The trees breathe in carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen. Surely the Government with its (pseudo) green credentials can seize an opportunity here and use well-managed forest as part of a carbon capture policy?

Extension of forest acreage could thus be viable and introduce even more country walks on the land that we own.

Open goal for secretive club

From: Keith Snowden, Redrock Road, Rotherham.

Hide Ad
Hide Ad

LEEDS United say that they need the help of Leeds City Council in redeveloping Elland Road (Yorkshire Post, January 28). If the council is to help, it should insist on knowing and making public who owns the club. It is a disgrace that this information is not a matter of public record for all to see.