Letter: We need out of EU now
David Cameron’s message to Shropshire means nothing.
He’s revamped the Cabinet a bit to show that he’s not really a mouse but it seems to me that he’s just re-arranging the deckchairs while the ship sinks – he’s substituting activity for action.
The one thing he could do is resolutely ignored except for vague token lip-service which he hopes will win the next election.
While we’re in the European Union he can do precious little about immigration, legal or otherwise – even assuming that our border guards are up to their job.
While we’re in the EU we’re paying, figures vary, but 50-60 million pounds each day.
We get some of that back, if we match it, but only to spend where we’re told and with various strings attached.
Mr Cameron is trying to sell us the idea of the new HS2 rail route between London and Birmigham – no mention of the fact that it’s the EUs requirement and we have no choice but to obey.
I’ve seen no mention of the fact that other EU countries have subsidised dairy industries, hence our industries are being destroyed by cheap imports.
If we left the EU we could decide our own laws again – and not have the European Court of Justice standing-by to allow appeals from our criminals and illegal immigrants.
If we left the EU it wouldn’t matter that Tony Blair gave away Maggie Thather’s hard-won rebate, we’d get it all back to spend as we wish.
Our farmers could farm their land properly, with no foreign interference.
The fact remains, as always, that the EU is killing this country but no-one has yet come up with a single reason to retain it – apart from the gravy train, that is.
A J Astley
Ellesmere
Comments for: "Letter: We need out of EU now"
R Suppards
I agree entirely. A referendum, please. The Prime Minister clearly isn't asking this question - because he knows full well what the answer will be.
Out.
Now.
Bill
It's not often anybody puts a letter in the Star that is so riddled with unfounded opinions and unsupported assertions. What a piece of UKIP propaganda waffle!
Mr Astley needs to make himself a little more aware of the trade figures between Britain and the other EU countries, then work out the consequences in closures and unemployment if UK exports face a tariff barrier that puts both agricultural and industrial businesses at a significant disadvantage.
Just to give the lie to his final claim, farmers can farm their land however they like - they get a per acre subsidy to spend how they choose. Their current difficulties in the dairy sector arise from an entirely UK-based price war between the supermarkets. Leaving the EU won't solve that.
ANDREW FINCH
The Uk government past and present has a reliance and allegiance to the EU both misguided, it is on par with staying in a low paid job and accepting crumbs you are far better jumping ship as you are then forced to do better , same with the EU lets jump ship and we will all do better in more ways than one .
Nick, Telford
Forty-five per of Britain's exports so far this year have gone to EU markets, which obviously means that 55 per cent have gone elsewhere, and this trend is increasing. Likewise, Britain is still the biggest market for many EU countries, thus it is inconceivable that should "TeamGB" decide to depart from "TeamEU" there would a huge price to pay, since many of those nations would shudder at the prospect of retaliatory sanctions. Companies such as Mercedes, BMW, Volkswagen, Renault, Peugeot and Fiat would be appalled at the idea of GB slapping import duties on their products.
Likewise, it is pointless asking for a referendum. Cameron promised one before the last election but had to abandon the idea because of his coalition obligations. And Labour promised one on any changes affecting our right to govern ourselves, but Brown reneged on that promise by falsely claiming the Treaty of Lisbon was merely a "tidying-up" exercise.
I too may be supporting the UKIP waffle but it is waffle I believe in and which researched facts and figures prove true, something which the mendacious majority of MPs cannot lay claim to.
Peter
A referendum was offered on a European Constitution. In the end what we got was further treaty, smaller in impact than previous treaties such as Maastricht.
So - no constituion, no referendum.
If we were to leave we would see the motor industry (JLR, Honda, Nissan, Toyota) all leave these shores. We would also see our currency heavily targetted by the financial markets.
If you want us to head even faster to a low-pay sweatshop economy where pay for most is poor, the wealthiest are even wealthier, there are no employment rights for ordinary workers, and little in the way of public services, then campaign to get us out and take us back to the 1930s if you must.
Small wonder the right are so keen on this nonsense.
Nick, Telford
Crass assumptions without evidence!
Ken Adams
Sorry peter Cameron made a cast iron promise that we would have a referendum on “any” treaty
David Cameron in The Sun, 26th September 2007
Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: If I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations.
So not a referendum on the EU Constitution as you claim, as “these negotiations” were taking place after the collapse of the Constitution. Also please point to the differences between the original EU Constitution and the result of the negotiations ie. the Lisbon Treaty. I think you will find very few they just repackaged the Constitution and made it harder to read.
"In terms of content, the proposals remain largely unchanged, they are simply presented in a different way... The reason is that the new text could not look too much like the constitutional treaty." — Valéry Giscard d’Estaing, former French President and Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, addressing the Constitutional Affairs Committee in the European Parliament, 17th July 2007
"The substance of the constitution is preserved. That is a fact." — Angela Merkel, German Chancellor, speech to the European Parliament, 27th June 2007
Peter
Since the letter writer seems incapable of detemining the difference between the European Court of Justice (an EU body) and the European Court of Human Rights (not an EU-related body) then there's probably not much in attempting to engage him in intelligent debate.
The latter rules on human rights, issues, the former is more involved with disputes over trades tarriffs and such matters.
Should we really be offering a referendum to people who know so little about what they're voting on?
Nick, Telford
Crass arrogance implying only the "qualified" (whoever they are) should be allowed a vote!
Peter
Of course I accept that everyone in a democracy should have a vote - but does it not worry you that people are considering such a complex and important matter based upon nothing but ignorance and tabloid propaganda?
Referenda need to be used carefully - they have the power to put crass ignorance into law.
Major motoring manufacturers in this country had already said in the past that not being in the Euro was negatively affecting their willingness to invest in the UK.
If we left the EU, and thus lost preferential access to European markets, they would simply set up shop elsewhere in Europe - there are plenty of skilled car workers in former Eastern bloc countries - even within the EU, Peugeot did just that - there isn't much keeping these manufacturers here other than our EU membership.
And of course it wouldn't just be the jobs in those companies which would be at risk - we would also see many jobs lost in the component supply industry.
If you really believe that pay and working conditions for ordinary workers wouldn't suffer if we left the EU, simply look at the policies of UKIP and the right of the Tory party towards such matters. They talk about 'deregulation' and 'getting rid of red tape'. The truth is that they want a low-pay, hire and fire economy - take a look at the US - their workers are really struggling in the recession.
The problem with anti-EU campaigners is that they have not come to terms with the fact that we are in a global economy - in order to survive in such circumstances we need to be part of a major trading group - we would simply become a target if we weren't, of the largely unregulated, and to some extent unregulatable market.
Contrary to right-wing opinion, and as we've all seen - the market doesn't always provide (at least not for anyone but the wealthy).
We cannot stand on our own - and we never could, despite romanticised views to the contrary. In the past, where some hark back to our great days (conveniently forgetting the poverty and diviisons that we had at the time) we were greatly reliant on exploiting the people and raw materials of our empire. That's all gone now, and the people of the Commonwealth have moved on - it's high time the eurosceptics did too.
Nick, Telford
Eloquently put but factually wrong.
Facts:
1, General Motors to invest £125million in the Ellesmere Port plant to build new generation of Astras for the European market.
2, Tata of India to build new factory next to M54 to build engines for its Jaguar Landrover plant.
3, BMW investing in its Rolls-Royce car factory at Crewe to satisfy growing demand.
Just these three hardly indicate a reluctance to embrace the British economy.
As for United States workers struggling in the recession, I suggest you dig out your passport (or Euro ID card!) and pop over to Spain, Portugal, Greece or even across the water to Ireland to see real struggles to survive.
Finally, rest assured that even if there was a referendum our European patriarchs would ignore a negative result and order more until a "correct" one was achieved.
Ken Adams
Not quite true, the courts are separate but the EU has signed to recognise the The European Court of Human Rights both for itself and its members, thus whilst we are in the EU we do not have the choice but to recognise it. So to all practical purposes the EU is linked to the The European Court of Human Rights.
Please do not try to fool us the EU Court is certainly not simply concerned with “disputes over trades tarriffs and such matters” Where does the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights fit in if that were the case. In fact why would the EU as the simple trading organisation to are trying to sell us
even have a Charter of Fundamental Rights.
Funny, you spread totally incorrect information about the EU and then claim “We” should not have a vote because “We” do not understand it.
James
Are you Bob Wydell in disguise?
Roger
I am in favour of the common market we joined. A Trading Bloc, with common standards. States getting together to form co-operative ventures large enough to compete with the more populace Nations like Russia, China, Brazil, India and the USA. We all need to work together if we are to continue to survive in a competitive world.
That is not the EU of today. Today the EU has expended to include the East European states of the former communist bloc. That expansion means there are more, poorer less developed states which the richer more developed states need to support. The Monetary adventures in fixing exchange rates and creating the Euro have significantly changed the nature of the organisation.
In practical terms that means that for a common currency Europe needs common fiscal policies in a common treasury and central bank. That in turn means the surrender of sovereignty to the European Parliament and more significantly the European Council. There are fresh calls for a Federal Europe which is inevitable if the Euro is to survive. That is not the common market I was in favour of joining.
I still believe in the common market so total withdrawal is not the answer. What I would like to see is a return to the common market I approve of, along side the EU states, who may merge and federate to their hearts content but at no cost to us. The newer members should not be full members, but some sort of associate that allows the trading and standards, but restricts the full rights of movement of labour and limits to the extent of subsidisation. This will allow these states to develop at their own pace to full membership.
In my mind the EU has been too ambitious and is failing because it is too much too fast. Their answer seems to be to go even faster toward a full federal union which I think is disastrous.
That means renegotiation of the treaty. Without that I see no future for Britain in Europe which would be a bad thing. We need common standards to do things like regulate the banks, impose health and safety regulations, make interchangeable goods, Human rights, collaborations etc.
Ken Adams
Roger what you say you want cannot be gained by renegotiation only by a much looser agreement and that can only be gained by leaving the EU and negotiating a totally new agreement. The renegotiation ploy is just to allow the parties to kick any EU debate into the long grass until after the next election. Then we will be misinformed about the results of the negotiations and the government of the day will offer a referendum and use all its power to gain a yes vote and we will still be on the train to the eventual destination of a United States of Europe.