Today’s first letter comes from our correspondent Roger Arthur. It chimes in nicely with M Barnier’s “Speech to the Germans”, doesn’t it!

Sir,

When I said that people were duped into voting to remain in a Common Market in 1975, a “clever” remainer said that was their stupid fault for not reading terms. Below is my response:

Never mind voters, it seems that even Heath himself was duped. In January 1973, he said on TV:

“There are some in this country who fear that in going into Europe, we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty. Those fears I need hardly say are completely unjustified.”

Having lost many vetoes and the ability for MPs to propose regulations, while being driven by self-amending EU treaties, I think we know the truth!

Here Mr Juncker confirms Monnet’s softly-softly strategy:

“We decide on something, leave it lying around and see what happens. If no one kicks up a fuss, because most don’t understand what has been decided, we continue step by step, until there is no turning back.”

From the horse’s mouth …

Respectfully, Roger Arthur

The next letter, by our contributor Ceri Jayes, contains a great piece on the “Divorce Bill” and Mr Juncker:

Sir,

Today’s tv news has had an item about many people’s difficulty in extricating themselves from the membership of various clubs.

Citizens’ Advice is offering help with how to go about the task.

I consider our EU membership to be along similar lines and think Brussels’ bully boys should read the piece outlined below.  Whichever way people voted in the referendum, the historic facts apply. This is doing the rounds:

FOOD FOR THOUGHT!

PERHAPS JEAN CLAUDE JUNCKER COULD BE PERSUADED TO WALK PAST EVERY WHITE GRAVESTONE IN NORMANDY AND SAY A PERSONAL ‘THANK YOU’ TO ALL OF THOSE BRITISH, AMERICAN AND COMMONWEALTH SOLDIERS WHO GAVE THEIR LIVES SO THAT EUROPE COULD BE FREE.

HE SHOULD ALSO BE REMINDED THAT BRITAIN HAD TO BORROW 120 BILLION DOLLARS IN 1945 TO FUND THIS FREEDOM, WORTH 4.88 TRILLION DOLLARS IN TODAY’S MONEY.

AND IT TOOK THE BRITISH TAXPAYERS 61 YEARS TO REPAY IT.

I THEREFORE SUGGEST THAT THE EU REPAY THIS FIGURE FIRST, ALONG WITH ALL THE INTEREST WE ACCRUED FROM THAT BORROWING. THEN, PERHAPS, WE CAN TALK ABOUT PAYING OUR SHARE OF HIS ‘BAR BILL’.

LEST WE FORGET

Please hand this around!

Respectfully, Ceri Jayes

Finally, our contributor Sonya Jay Porter has sent in her thoughts on the latest piece of news dominating our headlines:

Sir,

Do we really need another Royal Wedding?

Don’t get me wrong – I am very happy for the Prince and his Showgirl, especially for Harry who has, we have been told over the years, been quite desperate to get married, settle down and have a family. Which probably means that we shall have news of Royal Births over the next few years.

But, do we really need another Royal Wedding? Come to that, do we really need the Monarchy any longer?

Our Monarchs started out thousands of years ago as successful War Lords who, together with their tribes, battled against others to win and keep their own corner of our Island. Then they became authoritarian Kings, ruling with the help of other military men to whom they had parcelled out estates, thereby gaining loyal followers. Gradually, these landowners became a Parliament of sorts. A House of Lords. And while this was going on, our Kings formed alliances by marrying their daughters to other Kings’ sons around our neighbours both on the Island and the nearby Continent in the hope that this would help keep the peace between them (something which is no longer either possible or necessary).   Eventually, another Parliament was formed. A House of Commons. And the King or Queen became a Constitutional Monarch and non-party-political head of state.

But now it seems that the Monarchy has no real, serious function.

And because our current Queen, Elizabeth II, Assented to the Lisbon Treaty, signed in 2007, (which amended the earlier Treaties of Maastricht and Rome) she has allowed herself to become merely a citizen of the European Union and no more than the rest of the British people. Just as the rest of the Royal family are and will remain unless Britain does withdraw fully from the European Union.

And perhaps, even then, they would prefer to be ordinary members of the British population – you may remember that a short while ago Prince Harry was quoted as saying that when it came to being the next Sovereign, ‘no-one really wants the job’.

After all, think of it from the point of view of the younger members of the Royal Firm: this is a job they are all born into, not one they have been able to choose for themselves. Whether they want to be a King, Prince, Princess or Duke, they don’t have a choice. Now, you might think, lucky them! But can it be much fun to be constantly followed and photographed, to spend your life shaking hands, making nice speeches? Princess Margaret’s son, David Armstrong-Jones, was lucky because he could choose his career to be a furniture maker and live in relative obscurity. But from Prince Charles down to the children of Prince William, the rest have been lumbered with their jobs.

Isn’t it rather demeaning for our country to have a Royal Family around just to look pretty and attract the tourists? And also for the young Royals who have little to do now but act like Celebrities, carrying on the work that Pop Stars largely do?

So isn’t it time for a new TV show: ‘I’m a Royal Celebrity – Get Me Out Of Here’?

Respectfully, Sonya Jay Porter

Print Friendly, PDF & Email