Letters

16 May 2009

Spectator readers respond to recent articles

Sir: I am not sure which is worse: MPs abusing their position or MPs whinging that it ‘was in the rules’. Whose rules? One thing is certain. Anyone who trusts this shower with DNA or ID cards has rocks in their head.

Barry Tighe
London E11

The scandal of EU finances

Sir: There is widespread concern about the scandal of parliamentary expenses. But perhaps we should heighten our awareness of a bigger scandal. We are told that £3,500 million pounds go unaccounted for annually in the working of the European Union; that’s approximately £9.5 million of public money a day. When the auditor refused to sign the yearly accounts off recently, she was dismissed.

Julian Sofaer
London NW8

Charity should stay at home

Sir: Fraser Nelson writes (Politics, 9 May) that the Conservatives are committed to retaining or expanding the level of overseas aid. This reminded me of Professor Bauer’s definition of it: ‘Overseas aid is money taken from poor people in rich countries to give to rich people in poor countries.’ This point is made in greater detail by Dambiso Moyo in her book Dead Aid, which was reviewed in The Spectator on 14 February.

Conservatives could help people in both rich and poor countries by reducing overseas aid. Misplaced charity is not charity.

James Strachan
Via email

Glassed over

Sir: Rod Liddle (Liddle Britain, 2 May) neatly explains gender pay differentials, but not Harriet Harman’s ‘glass ceiling’. Her thinking takes it as read that we’re all born the same and life fills in the differences, despite the ‘blank slate’ concept being a philosophical and neuroscientific lame duck. Perhaps the most important requirement of corporate management is meticulously calculated risk-taking — a characteristic found in relatively few of us, but more likely to be so in testosterone-driven men than women. Of course politicians can choose to ignore objective criteria in order to prefer favoured groups, so long as they accept responsibility for selecting on the basis of gender, race or religion rather than ability. Positive discrimination in all its forms is a euphemism for anti-meritocracy: good for its beneficiaries, bad for society at large.

John Bunyard
Ashford, Kent

Previous page 1 | 2 | 3

Bruno Drake

May 14th, 2009 10:49am Report this comment

Martin Bright rightly highlights the repercussions Labour's weaknesses with respect to forthcoming local elections.
Yet, within the tangled web of current UK politics there lies a significant threat for British people. As ‘cock-up island’ slowly slips beneath the waves, and the UK moves seamlessly into self-destruct mode, the UKIP bunch of pirates – floating off-shore in their patched-up dinghy, are ready to collect the resultant political flotsam, whilst further off-shore the more sinister black form of the BMP sub looms. Certain stated UKIP and BMP policies, if implemented, would present huge problems for Brits seeking work in the EU.

For reasons best known to themselves, these political parties, until now, on the extreme edge of the political scene, have stated their wish to withdraw the UK from the European Union and with that move all reciprocal existing social and economic arrangements would be cancelled.

UKIP policy documents state that on being elected as the government of the UK, Britain ‘will leave the political EU and trade globally and freely’. The British National Party’s policy on the EU also indicates immediate and a recent BBC poll found that a significant majority of British voters endorse withdrawal; the unthinkable could happen, yet there could be few quicker ways of creating even greater economic uncertainty for the UK.
UKIP and the BMP suggest that Britain could simply withdraw from the EU, thereby gaining ‘huge benefits’ from being on the edge of the trading scene. What nonsense! There would still be extensive charges to be met by the UK post withdrawal, in order to gain access to the lucrative benefits of the EU's single market of 450 million people. With an estimated 3.5 million Uk jobs, now totally dependent on trade with Europe, the EU's single market is surely vital for British business?
Quitting the EU would mean negotiating trade agreements governing goods and services and also the sale of meat, dairy products, fruit and vegetables and, by virtue of size alone, the larger trading bloc would hold the upper hand. This is so obvious I can only assume that the UKIP/BMP policy makers have other ‘fish to fry’ when promoting EU withdrawal.
And what can we conclude concerning the overall capabilities of UKIP’s leadership, past and present to lead us forward into the ‘sunlit pastures’ post EU withdrawal? What signs have we had, to date, that they are in any way superior to the present leading players in the dung-heap drama of British politics? A quick ‘Google’ of the UKIP ‘stars’ , Farage, Knapman, Suchorzewski, Noakes, Pratt and of course Robert Kilroy-Silk suggests a very frightening future. Best to buy the breathing gear now and slide under the waves with the UK.
One diplomat has said: "Would other countries really accept a nation of 60 million on their doorstep, taking part in all the bits of the single market they like, ignoring the rest, and undercutting them in areas like employment and social standards?"
For nations such as Switzerland, Norway or Iceland, agreements with the EU have been developed over the years. But Britain would be renegotiating virtually every aspect of its economic relationship, not just with the other members of the EU, but with other trading blocs too. Do you really see the current UKIP ‘stars’ undertaking this massive task?

Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein as members of the European Economic Area (EEA) free trade area, are bound by most of the obligations of EU membership but provided with none of its influence. Together these EEA nations contribute billions of Euros to the EU's cohesion funds to help Europe's poorer countries to develop, plus payments to foreign policy spending. They are unable to refuse.
Outside the EU, the UK would certainly remain a nuclear power, with a global reach as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, but excluded from Europe, Britain would be far a less of an important ally for the US and therefore less entitled to commercial special considerations.
These are the facts concerning the UK’s withdrawal from the EU but, worryingly, I can’t see the current generation of political non-entities promoting the relevant contrary arguments. They’re far more concerned with their expenses claims.

Post comment