Letters: July 12, 2016

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

Uncertainty lies ahead

IN YOUR report (Adver, July 4) on the Anti-Brexit rally, a Leave supporter says those who voted Remain should accept that they lost.

As one of who feels shocked, saddened and angered by the outcome of the referendum, acceptance is far from easy.

While I do not think there can be a second vote, I question whether the government does have a public mandate to withdraw from the EU.

Firstly, Leave votes represent a minority of the total electorate.

Secondly, as recent letters illustrate, many supported the Leave campaign for reasons that are simply untrue.

Britain does not send the EU £315 million a week – money we could spend on the NHS instead.

This sum ignores our rebate and all the funds that come back to the UK in payments to farmers, social and environmental programmes, scientific projects, university funding and more.

We are not “ruled by Brussels”; we do not have laws “imposed on us by unelected bureaucrats”.

The unelected European Commission (our Commissioner is chosen by the Prime Minister) doesn’t make laws.

It only makes proposals which are then debated, amended and passed (or not) by elected national governments through the Council of Ministers, and MEPs who are directly elected via proportional representation by European citizens.

EU laws and directives – which critics like to label as “red tape” – include those that have driven higher environmental standards in Britain (cleaner beaches and rivers, habitat protection, etc), enshrined workers’ rights and ensured consumer safety.

People who voted Leave in the hope of reducing EU immigration are likely to be disappointed, as access to the EU single market depends on acceptance of free movement of workers.

We may see the return of Britons living in EU countries, including thousands of pensioners unable to afford health care once their European Health Insurance Card becomes invalid.

The Brexit vote has precipitated the most serious national crisis – economic, political and social – since the Second World War.

We face years of uncertainty, as lawyers unpick 80,000 pages of EU agreements and hundreds of trade experts (whom we don’t currently have) try to negotiate favourable trade deals.

Opportunities to co-operate with others in Europe to tackle major challenges of our time, such as climate change and terrorism, and to respond humanely to the refugee crisis, have been lost.

ELSPETH WOLLEN

St Andrews Court, Wroughton

....

Stand up to hate crime

HATE crime has soared in the south west since June 24.

The alarming increase in racist attacks are being perpetrated by a minority who appear to be feeling emboldened by a vote to leave the EU.

During the referendum campaign I argued that the European Union has played a vital role in underpinning stability and democracy across our continent.

We should not take our democratic rights for granted and I am shocked by the instability and divisions that the vote to leave, and the campaign itself, have caused.

On the campaign trail I experienced first-hand anger and intimidation; a degree of rage that I have never previously experienced in my political life. It felt to me that this was being deliberately unleashed by those whose currency is the politics of hate.

The Leave Campaign’s deplorable use of fearmongering around immigration and asylum seekers has undoubtedly fuelled this hatred.

I urge all decent minded people in the south west to stand together against discrimination and to defend democracy. A good way to show your support is by wearing a safety pin, a symbol of solidarity against racism.

I am wearing mine, pinning my hopes on working together to create a more tolerant and respectful society.

MOLLY SCOTT CATO MEP, Green

European Parliament, Brussels

....

Accept result of vote

MY FELLOW correspondents Mike Spry and Stephen Thompson appear very unhappy at the democratic decision of a majority of voters to seek an exit from the EU political construct.

So unhappy are they that Stephen is moved to suggest that the Leave vote is a betrayal of the future of young people. To which some might say “what utter nonsense”.

If the vote had been 52 per cent to 48 per cent in support of Remain I am sure my friends would be calling on Leavers to accept the result with good grace and acknowledge the arguments to Leave had not been made.

We all know that exaggeration and hyperbole was the stock in trade of both camps, just as it is in almost any politically inspired election campaign.

But for Stephen to state that the Brexiteers have already gone back on their promises is untrue, for the referendum was not about promises and there was no manifesto from either side.

He well knows that the outcome of the decision requires the elected government to act in accordance with the will of the people, albeit Parliament can if it so wishes simply ignore the referendum result.

The voice of the people has been heard and in the absence of any rule to the contrary the majority won the day.

Many may not like it but are we now to see the ballot box challenged until the “right decision” is made, something which I must confess is so typically EU?

DES MORGAN

Caraway Drive, Swindon

....

Majority have spoken

I DON’T know what school some of your correspondents went to, but the schools I did (Pinehurst and Headlands) in the 1960s taught me that a majority is more than 50 per cent of the votes cast.

Therefore as the Referendum showed a 52 per cent vote in favour of Brexit, which is by definition a majority, it must stand. Accusations have been made about Brexit campaigners telling lies. Obviously the Remainers believe they told the truth.

Again, my schools taught me the difference between truth and lies, and while I accept that Brexit may have stretched the truth, the Remain group very much told lies even greater than Brexit may have done.

The majority of votes cast in the UK were in favour of Brexit, therefore the decision must stand.

To do otherwise would be to put this country in the same league as the corrupt EU officials (ask the populations of Ireland, Denmark and The Netherlands how they treated their rejection of new treaties – Maastricht, Lisbon, etc) and even as the Nazi and the Communist regimes, where the leaders ignored any dissent.

The legal challenge being made by an anonymous group (who obviously do not have the courage even to identify themselves) is apparently from big business, who are presumably worried about their profits, fat cat salaries, and big bonuses. They are not interested in the country.

ANTHONY KINDER

Limes Avenue

Pinehurst, Swindon

....

Honouring our heroes

IN REPLY to Margaret Hudson, (Adver, July 1). Has it occurred to me that there might have been no world wars if the European Union had existed?

NATO has kept the peace in Europe for more than 70 years, not the EU.

Has it occurred to her that if it hadn’t been for Britain and her allies in two world wars the EU would not exist, but would have been provinces of Nazi Germany.

In reply to Pauline McCarthy (Adver, July 5), she accuses me of trivialising the war dead by referring to them regarding the referendum.

She mentions the losses to her family in these conflicts, and I honour them for their sacrifice.

My wife and I are both direct descendants of Somme veterans. I lost many relatives in both world wars and also had an uncle who went insane when he was finally released from a Japanese prison of war camp.

Without these brave women and men who sacrificed their lives for freedom and democracy there would not have been a democratic referendum on one of the great and most important issues of our times – the return of our sovereignty and control of our borders, on whether we should be a province of Europe, or Great Britain once again.

Finally, I regularly contribute to the Poppy Appeal and have a permanent poppy emblem in front of my car all year round.

I also contribute to Help For Heroes and wear their wrist band all year round.

Does that sound like trivialising our brave past and present heroes?

BILL WILLIAMS

Merlin Way

Covingham, Swindon

....

Couldn’t make it up

I SEE UKIP are at it again, having supported the official Leave campaign, they are now making demands as to who runs a party to which they don’t belong.

They also are making demands as to who negotiates with the EU and making impossible demands as to when Article 50 is invoked.

Article 50, by the way, is part of the Lisbon Treaty they opposed so vehemently.

Not satisfied with being so contrary they do it in an insulting manner.

In the meantime their party boss, Farage, will stay an MEP on £12,000 for the next two years and then get an EU pension of £5,600 and he has the cheek to say others are on a graveyard train.

You couldn’t make it up.

STEVE THOMPSON

Norman Road, Swindon

....

Identify overspending

AT THE recent meeting in West Swindon, which started 20 minutes late because of the delayed arrival of a key presenter, it was stated that Haydon Wick Parish Council pays £20,000 a year less than SBC for the same services.

This begs the question, given the disparity in purchasing power because of size, why the council could not do this itself.

It was also stated at the meeting that the council’s scrutiny committee had looked into this, but its findings were not known.

If this is the case, would a review challenging expenditure on the old and vulnerable identify overspending?

Could there also be savings on “consultations”, where tax payers’ views are routinely ignored?

DEREK LOWSON

Moresby Close, Swindon