Letters to the Editor

With thanks to our correspondents. Their views are not necessarily those of the Campaign for an Independent Britain.

The Leicester Mercury

Friday 30 May, 2014

Sir,

I do not think that Liberal Democrat Bill Newton Dunn’s MEP seat could have been saved but it might have helped if he had not repeated the myth that 3 million jobs depend upon our EU membership.

The myth and figure has continued, at first by Tony Blair and since by Nick Clegg, ever since February 2000 when a national newspaper exposed “Blow to Blair over ‘silly’ EU job scare” and reported that Britain in Europe with their failed campaign to scrap the pound, suffered a humiliating setback after one of the country’s most senior economists accused it of misrepresenting his research. That economist reportedly said of the distortion, “It’s pure Goebbels.”

The myth continues as a ploy to try and frighten people.

George West

10 July, 2013

Dear George,

The UK must leave the ECHR to help ensure its freedom

Life no longer means life, according to a decision taken in the Strasbourg based European Court of Human Rights yesterday. This goes against rulings made in UK Courts and will potentially put those living in the UK at risk.

The decision has been quickly criticised across the political spectrum as it restricts the ability for judges to give appropriate sentences as well as undermines sentences that have already been given.

It illustrates the ever increasing and intrusive nature of European institutions on the lives and freedoms of citizens in the United Kingdom. From Abu Qatada to yesterday’s decision, this court is restricting the UK’s ability to decide.

Downing Street sources have been quoted as saying that they are “very, very disappointed” with the decision. So are we. This concerns The Freedom Association so much that it makes us ask: who runs this country?

Yours sincerely,

Roy Broomfield and Dia Chakravarty

31 May 2013

Sir,

Large Scale Immigration

Roy Wheatley asks what is the purpose of large scale immigration when we have so many people out of work?

The answer is quite simple. It was a deliberate government policy to “undermine national homogeneity.  It used to be the duty of government to protect the native population from invasion and colonisation. Now they have stood that duty on its head.

Andrew Neather revealed that New Labour boosted Third World immigration with the deliberate intent of causing irreversible demographic change – in short the government was electing a new people which, it calculated, would be more likely to vote Labour.

Peter Sutherland, former EU Commissioner, former head of the World Trade Organisation, former Chairman of BP, member of the shadowy Bilderberg group and Goldman Sachs multi millionaire, told the House of Lords in June last year that the EU should do its best to undermine the homogeneity of native populations .

He criticised the very modest restriction imposed by the present government, saying it had no basis in international law. He also called on EU governments to reverse policies favouring “highly skilled” immigrants.

As the contents of our jails show, the advent of multiculturalism has not been an unmixed blessing. What on earth can be the point of importing unskilled people to a country experiencing high unemployment, if not simply to force down wages? That may well suit Goldman Sachs.  Add to this a highly attractive system of welfare payments, much more generous than in the Eastern member states of the EU and we can expect many more coming to live off us as well. They will have a right to do so, as long as we remain in the EU. This government favours staying in the

EU and Turkish EU membership. This will bring an inevitable consequent huge influx from that highly populated, fecund country.

At the beginning of its time in office, the Blair government commissioned a study on British identity by the Runnymede Trust. Their report asserted that the terms “British” and “English” were so laden with racist overtones that they should be avoided wherever possible. They even considered the possibility of giving our country an entirely new name but did not make any recommendation.

So the native British people are wedged three ways – between the ideologues of the Left who really hate and despise us, the EU which wants to destroy our national identity and the massive vested interest of corporate capital which wants to use both of these forces to help the prosperity of Goldman Sachs and friends, making their investments more profitable by forcing down wages.

Yours faithfully

Edward Spalton

5^th July 1012

Open letter from John Redwood, MP to the new Director General of the BBC

Dear DG,

Congratulations on your appointment. You have a great job and an important task.

Many of us are proud of the best of the BBC, and agree that much of its programming produces good quality entertainment and interesting debate. Some of your critics come from both the political “right” and the political “ left”, claiming that the BBC has institutional bias against their parties.

I do not believe that BBC broadcasters overall have a systematic bias pro Labour or anti Conservative. I have heard good journalists give tough interviews to Labour Ministers, just as they rightly give tough interviews to Conservative Ministers. During the Labour years the BBC did cover the scandals and problems that afflicted Labour, as well as Conservatives. As the BBC often says to a complainant, the fact that both sides have causes to complain proves they are getting something right.

I do, however, think the BBC has an institutional bias when it comes to general views of the world. For too long the BBC has given much too much favourable airtime to those who think the EU, the Euro and all that goes with it is a good idea. Those of us who criticised the project were, until recently, given less time, interrupted more, and often introduced in a way designed to make us appear wrong or worse. Recent interviews have attempted to balance it a bit more on the issue of the Euro, given the daily news of its problems. There is still bias when it comes to examining the debate about long term membership of the EU. The BBC still comes over as believing leaving the EU is an extreme or impractical option. BBC interviewers seem to be soundbite trained to assume we could not trade with the EU if we left it, and to assume that 3 million jobs would disappear overnight if we quit!

The same problem dogs the Corporation’s treatment of climate change theory. The BBC takes the view that the “science is settled”. Any intelligent person should know that by definition the science is never settled. Newtonian physics was a great breakthrough, which settled the view of the heavens. In the twentieth century its was challenged and improved. Many intelligent people have many different reasons for disagreeing with pure climate change theory and more importantly with the policy conclusions that flow from it in the debate. The BBC does all too little to give these dissenting voices decent airtime, to explore their disagreements and to allow viewers and listeners to make up their own minds. If the conventional theory is as all conquering as the BBC says, it should be able to handle grown up examination of its alleged shortcomings from its critics. Tackling fuel poverty and promoting more industry in the UK, two popular causes even with the BBC, are difficult to combine with carbon Puritanism.

There is above all at the BBC an assumption that state spending is good and more state spending is better. Rarely does the BBC give proper airtime to the case for greater freedom and lower taxes. So many interviews are arranged to regret “the cuts” and to find governmental answers to social and family problems. Even “Thought for the day”, the so called religious slot, is usually taken up with more political commentary of a particular kind, where the department, policy or Minister being criticised does not get to answer back.

Yours sincerely

John Redwood

8^th March 2012

Sir,

The Eurozone crisis could lead to economic migrants coming to the UK

For those misguided people who continue to believe that the benefits of membership of the EU outweigh the disadvantages, I ask that they remove their rose tinted spectacles before it is too late.

The joint committee on the government’s National Security Strategy (NSS) warns of the collapse of the Euro but seriously underestimates the crisis already upon us. They say that the partial or complete collapse of the currency “could” lead to an increase in economic migrants between EU states when in fact this is already happening on a large scale.

In Northumberland for example, where I used to live before coming to Leicester, employment offices have noticed a surge in Spanish job seekers. With 17 million unemployment in the Euro-zone and 23 million in the EU (all of whom have the right to cross our borders and seek work here) this tidal wave consequence of the failed Euro could destroy even those economies which are outside the Euro.

This is a grave and imminent danger, not something Ministers can take time considering. Breaking EU treaties on “free movement” will be preferable to millions of unemployed Europeans competing with British youth for what few jobs our (relative) economic success might supply. I remain in touch with the celebrated economist, author and lecturer Rodney Atkinson from whose website Freenations this information is available.

It is no wonder that Peter Valentine of the CIA funded European Movement has fallen silent in recent months and halted his incessant pleas for the UK to replace our own currency with euros

Yours faithfully

George West

1^st March 2012

Dear Editor,

Blowing hot and cold

The European Union has been at the forefront of promoting acceptance of the idea of “man- made climate change”. It uses “global warming” as the justification to extend its regulatory powers and to throw its weight behind the imposition of “green taxes”. But what sort of “climate change” is really happening?

According to a recent issue of the journal Nature, we need to brace ourselves for another freezing winter with the return of La Niña, a climate phenomenon known to disrupt global weather. The warning coincides with research from the Met Office suggesting that Britain and Europe could be facing a return of the “little ice age” that gripped Britain three centuries ago – a period when ice fairs were often held on the frozen River Thames in London. This could bring us decades of bitter winters throughout Europe.

The prediction is based on observations showing a fall in the sun’s emissions of ultraviolet radiation. Yet only a few years ago the Met Office was predicting “mild winters” ahead. In the event, temperatures plummeted. Ten years ago Dr David Viner, senior research scientist at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, said that within a few years winter snowfall would become “a very rare and exciting event” and that “children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”

Who and what are we to believe? Whether we should be bracing ourselves for a new Ice Age or preparing for a Mediterranean climate in England in the near future, the one thing that is certain is that the EU and the Government will continue to blame everything on “man-made climate change” and will use every excuse to attack and constrain British businesses and impose yet more “green taxes”.

The time has come to expose this gigantic confidence trick. But it will be difficult, as the delusion has taken a grip on too many people already – and only a few brave souls have the temerity to stand up and point out that “the Emperor has no clothes”!

Yours,

Francis W. Spencer

18^th May 2012

Sir,

Germany again

Whichever way you assess it the main culprit in the European debacle is once again Germany. Let us not forget the turmoil that this country has wreaked in Europe since 1870. There is something not quite acceptable in the German psyche. The sooner this charade of the EU is disbanded the better for all concerned. The original concept was ill-thought out as it tried to rush matters through without paying any regard to individual national characteristics which haven taken centuries to develop – typical German/Prussian `jackboot` philosophy.

Yours faithfully

J.S.Perry

The Editor, Witney Gazette

Dear Sir,

Politicians are detached from real lives of electors

I saw the sale notice for the Beaconsfield Club in the Derby Telegraph. The main political parties are going out of fashion and the Beaconsfield Conservative Club is one victim.

In 1947 the Labour Party had 1 million members and 14 million affiliates through the trade union and co-operative movements. The Conservative party had 3 million members. Those in the know reckon that Conservative Party membership is now somewhere around 100,000 today and the other main parties are on a steep downward trend, too.

At the same time as the decline in party membership, the number of paid political posts has increased enormously. Even ordinary councillors now get around £10,000 a year for a job they used to do for nothing.

If you add to that the MEPs, the members of the devolved assemblies, the assistants-to and researchers plus the paid members of quangos, regional bodies and statutory agencies, there must be over 50,000 jobs, ranging from nice part-time earners to really serious money, well over £100,000 a year-plus (sometimes for two or three days’ work a week).

So the parties are increasingly associations of office-seekers and their close associates. As far as Parliament is concerned, the candidates are drawn from an increasingly narrow, professional political class. It is remarkable that the main parties have continued to hold on to so much of the electors’ tribal loyalties when they increasingly no longer represent real mass constituencies of interest.

This is a triumph of the art of the spin doctor, the sound bite and public relations but politicians in their Westminster bubble are increasingly detached from electors’ real lives.

The parties’ preferred solution is to stop relying on members and seek their income from the taxpayer to fund all that expensive PR.

As WS Gilbert remarked, one may admire their ruddy countenance but not their flaming cheek.

Yours faithfully,

Dave Barnby

Sir,

We are paying for European Aid

It’s a pity that Witney Labour Party’s pre-election leaflet (just delivered) should have spoiled an otherwise proficient document by stating they are ‘fighting for more investment from the EU in the South East and to protect local jobs’.

Does the writer not realise that EU aid is paid for from British taxes. What is available in ‘aid’ is less than the amount paid in the first place due to greater relative amounts paid to less well – off nations and the overheads in running the scheme and the EU itself. There is an outrageous waste in the process, so much so, that the court of auditors has for the last 18 years been unable to sign off the accounts.

Where is the benefit – why doesn’t Labour just push to have EU payments scrapped and distribute the monies in ways we decide?

And if Labour is so concerned with protecting local jobs, why do they support unlimited freedom of movement? The truth is that their mass immigration policy is designed to please their corporate backers and a low wage economy. No wonder the Institute for Fiscal Studies is predicting that those born in the ’60s and ’70s are likely to be no better off in retirement than their predecessors – unless they inherit.

Yours faithfully

Dave Barnby

The Editor, The Times

22^nd September 1972

Sir,

Powers of Parliament in the EEC

During the passage of the European Communities Bill through our two Houses of Parliament nothing has been said to alleviate the acute anxieties of those who have always been dismayed by the proposal to transfer away from Westminster important legislative and executive powers without making any arrangements for Parliamentary control of the subsequent exercise of those powers by the institutions of the Communities.

Our traditional Parliamentary control of executive and legislative power is based on the ultimate authority and power of Parliament. Our governments are answerable to Parliament for executive action and without Parliament’s cooperation cannot legislate. In our constitutional language this is responsible government; and for us the ultimate authority of Parliament and the fundamental responsibility of our governments to Parliament constitute our protection against arbitrary governmental action and, in the last resort, the great safeguard of our individual liberties.

These twin factors of ultimate Parliamentary authority and governmental responsibility have also exerted a decisive influence upon the nature of political activity here and upon the way in which we practise our kind of Parliamentary democracy. In our system those anxious to change the law or to exert pressure in favour of, or against, some particular government action know that the ultimate target, for their political campaign is in Parliament at Westminster; and all political activity is aimed at achieving, by pressure of public opinion or otherwise, sufficient support in Parliament.

We all know this: and the knowledge is at the heart of our “willingness to comply with laws, whether or not we agree with them, while reserving our fundamental right to campaign by every constitutional means for their repeal or amendment”. The ultimate authority of Parliament gives to political activity a clarity and open-ness which minimize backstairs influence and intrigue and make the rule of law so characteristically acceptable to our people.

From January 1, 1973, if the supporters of the Bill have their way, the bodies exercising the transferred Governmental powers will be (in our consititutional language) irresponsible – not answerable to, or controlled by, our Parliament or any other parliament. In respect of the transferred powers the new target for our political campaigners will be those irresponsible bodies. So the Bill not only proposes an abandonment of inherited constitutional principles and safeguards: it also threatens to change decisively the way in which we practise democracy and the character of political activity and attitudes in this country.

Some supporters of the Bill look forward to a time when the Communities have a directly- elected parliament exercising the requisite control over the exercise of governmental power within the Communities; but it seems unlikely that such a parliament will be created, because this sort of control can be exercised only by a parliament which has the ultimate constitutional authority and power.

Moreover if such a parliament could be created, each of its directly elected members would represent a huge constituency; there would be a much less sensitive relationship between the electorate and its elected representatives than there is between us and our men at Westminster; and only a minority of the members of such a parliament would have been brought up in our particular traditions of Parliamentary democracy and government.

The only acceptable control of the transferred powers is control by our Parliament (and, of course, by each other member country’s parliament). That control is compatible with the limited (albeit important) range of powers now to be transferred. Before making any further transfer of powers, eg. powers over money and currencies, we ought to think again about control procedures.