Gazette & Herald19/05/16


Cameron turns

IT is hard to believe that three months ago, David Cameron was all for taking us out of EU if he didn’t get the reforms he was fighting for.

Suddenly, despite the meagre crumbs he has been thrown. He has become pro-European. He calls it a reformed EU at every opportunity. No rational person is fooled by this anomaly.

He is being careful not to mention immigration, when it is one of the main concerns of the electorate. Public services are seriously over burdened. School places, the NHS, housing, to name a few. I have been waiting a month for an MRI scan. It may be due to over burdening, I don’t really know. It now transpires that Turkey are to be given visas and free movement. How long before this influx filters into the UK?

Cameron, in his desperation is hinting at serious conflict if we vote to leave, how ludicrous.

There are many conflicting views on leaving or staying, which only serves to confuse the undecided even more.

We are an island nation already over crowded. Surely its time to take care of our own interests and vote to leave this bloated, corrupt federal state.

Clive Milson, Huttons Ambo

Help the fight

Newspaper

Gazette & Herald   02/03/16


Agendas aside

NOW that the battle lines have been drawn by the chief protagonists for the forthcoming European referendum, I hope the politicians act in a responsible manner and stop this scaremongering which only insults the public’s intelligence.

No doubt the outcome will be depend on the undecided voters and it is these voters who need to hear honest debates and facts.

I implore politicians, from whichever party, to put their personal agendas aside and try to give the public factual information. After all it will be the people’s decision.

David Cameron returned from Brussels with his watered down reforms. He then tells us it would be a leap in the dark to vote to leave.

Surely it would also be a leap in the dark to remain, when these “reforms”, and I use the word guardedly, are not set in stone and can easily be overruled by the European Court of Justice after the referendum has taken place.

Please be more open and give us the facts.

Clive Milson, Huttons Ambo

UKIP Thirsk & Malton

Gazette & Herald 02/03/16


Membership costs

A TOPIC not addressed much is that of the cost of our membership of the European Union.

It can be difficult to discover any coherent, and, perhaps, truthful information. I did read, from the House of Commons Library, a briefing paper no 06091 dated January 16, 2016.

Here are some snippets for the year 2015 from there: gross contribution £17.8 billion (est); rebate £4.3 billion; grants from EU £5.0 billion; net contribution £8.5 billion.

This is a lot of cash from anyone’s pocket. We have no idea where the £8.5 billion goes. The EU accounts cannot reveal that either. I think we get to keep the £4.5 billion unconditionally and the £5.0 billion we have to spend according to regulations, rules and protocols dictated by the EU. The smallest default here and we are “fined”. (a lot).

If we were not a contributing member, we would have been, as a country, financially richer by £17.8 billion in 2015. This will rise to £20.3 billion (forecast) by 2020. Just remember where this comes from – our taxation – income tax, excise duty, VAT and council tax. On top of this, the cost of implementing the 100 most oppressive EU regulations adds £33.3 billion to our “hidden” expense. To the “average income” household this amounts to about £1,700 per year.

With a sensible and intelligent government, they are our brightest and best, our farming community could be even better supported, more for the NHS. Education Emergency Services. We would still have to comply with EU regulations to trade with their countries and with the USA under the Transatlantic Trading and Investment Partnership. But these would be on our decision and not dictated from Bruxelles or wherever.

Like the man says, it is your decision.

D M Loxley, Hartoft

Gazette & Herald  23/03/16


EU farm subsidies

IT APPEARS from letters and articles that farmers fear a vote to leave the EU would mean their loss of subsidies. At least to those farmers who have received their payment.

However, I feel a longer term approach needs to be considered. Despite the UK being a net contributor to the EU, the money given to the CAP looks set to decrease as the number of recipients gets larger.

Bulgaria is the most recent country to have applied to become a member of the EU, supported by London and Berlin.

New countries that continue to join the EU are poor enough to be net recipients of the EU budget and therefore dilute the funds available for the UK.

As the Euro currency continues to fail, payments have already been shrinking and will continue to do so with a weak single currency. Effectively, British farmers have suffered pay cuts for the last two years.

Prior to joining the Common Market (which the UK public originally voted for – not political union headed up by unelected Commissioners) British governments of all persuasions supported agriculture, it is not a unique EU concept.

A common sense approach would be for The government should set out a manifesto detailing how they would govern if in the event the public voted to leave (which is what the current polls indicate) and how they would invest the £55 million per day which British tax payers currently pay to be a member of this “club”.

Emma Lund, Broughton