Why Remainer Gina Miller’s deorgatory and personal comments about Nigel Farage are an insult too far – Yorkshire Post letters

Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller.
Anti-Brexit campaigner Gina Miller.
0
Have your say

From: William Rees, Boroughbridge.

I WOULD have hoped for a more coherent rationale from Gina Miller in her article (The Yorkshire Post, March 8) which tries to persuade us that Brexit is a terrible mistake.

Gina Miller: can Nigel Farage marchers tell us the benefits of Brexit?

Ms Miller seeks to do this by making derogatory and personal comments about a number of prominent Brexit supporters, particularly Nigel Farage, which quoting dubious statistics about what “could” happen in the event of Brexit actually being implemented.

And her analysis, such as it is, seems faulty, describing the EU as the “greatest and most successful socialist project of all time,” while claiming that its size allows it to stand up to various “global giants”.

The fact is that the global hi-tech companies are only 
too delighted to deal with the 
EU, because they are able to shore up their own monopolistic trading practices with regulations that protect their interests.

The EU’s “four freedoms” simply funnel economic growth and prosperity into a small number of industrial and commercial centres while leaving the rest of Europe behind, although they do throw some crumbs from the table in the form of the regional social funds that she also refers to.

Unfortunately there will be short-term pain if and when we leave the EU, given how the Government has failed to plan adequately for us leaving without a so-called deal.

But let’s remember, when you jump out of a sinking ship, you do get wet.

And in the long term it is far better than the alternative.

From: Jon Marcus, Colville Gardens, Lightwater, Surrey.

HOW fortunate we Brits are to have Gina Miller ignoring democracy and doing her best to upset our referendum vote to leave the EU.

The latest example of this is her column in which she attacks Nigel Farage and people like Boris Johnson and Jacob Rees-Mogg, and says Brexit supporters have not told the populace the advantages of leaving the EU.

I won’t list all the advantages, to save space. The three people above have already explained the advantages many times.

She seems to have a problem with facts and gives a very one-sided argument to support her various claims.

If the British were asked to join the EU now, the vote would be overwhelming against being part of this undemocratic, wasteful, corrupt shambles presided over by unelected, unaccountable, gravy-train riding bureaucrats.

We all know the EU is terrified of Britain having a clean break on March 29 because of the billions it would lose and it knows our economy will greatly prosper once we are out of the EU straitjacket.

From: Barrie Crowther, Walton, Wakefield.

REMAINERS like Gina Miller cannot seem to grasp that European Social Fund money sent to Britain originates from British contributions originally sent to Brussels. So in effect we are recycling our own money. Not only that, but for every £2 paid in we receive approximately £1 back – according to Nigel Lawson, a former Chancellor. Good business practice?

From: Eddie Peart, Broom Crescent, Rotherham.

THE article written by Gina Miller does not mention the referendum result. I wonder why? Perhaps we should ignore the result of the next general election and place the unelected Michel Barnier and his crew in positions of power?

Whitehall staff crisis

From: Geoff Wilson, Forest Crescent, Harrogate.

THE Yorkshire Post has, quite rightly, exposed the shortcomings of Chris Grayling in the running of the Department for Transport and while I am in no way

trying to excuse him, I would like to draw your attention to the shortcomings of those whose task it is to provide advice not only to Grayling but also other government departments.

Hidden in the website of The Institute for Government is a very damning report called Moving On, written by Tom Sasse and Emma Norris, on the damaging effect of the very high turnover of staff in government departments. Effectively turnover is such that in the life of many major projects there can be several changes in senior members.

This leads to discontinuity in the projects and simply a lack of expertise in those whose job it is to provide advice to Ministers. Indeed some Ministers complain that they know more than those who are advising them.

Struggling to be heard

From: Paul Iwanyckyj, Bawtry Road, Bessacarr, Doncaster.

I READ with great interest (and some dismay) Sean Dodson’s article (The Yorkshire Post, March 5) regarding the number of times MPs not only spoke in the House of Commons last year but actually mentioned their constituents.

Well done Rachael Maskell (York Central) for doing so 113 times. But consider poor old Doncaster where I live.

Now you might think on the surface that we are well served with three MPs, two reasonably well-known in the form of Caroline Flint and Dame Rosie Winterton, and one very well-known in the form of Ed Miliband. However, when you delve into the statistics contained in the article, then the stark facts are that a high-profile MP delivers fewer benefits to the constituents than an industrious backbencher does. No wonder we struggle to be heard.

Long divisions

From: Arthur Quarmby, Mill Moor Road, Meltham

THE Government’s refusal even to consider the One Yorkshire proposal is clearly because with a population greater than that of Scotland, it would be far too powerful. They wish to divide it up into city regions which will compete with each other and so be far more easy to control.