This has been fired off to the MP today, I shall report back when I receive a response. I’m betting it will be after the big day, but we’ll see. . .
I note with great interest that the members of the Backbench Business Committee have scheduled a debate on the question of a motion surrounding a referendum on our EU membership for October 27th.
As a constituent, I am writing to you to ask how you intend to vote following this debate, and to put forward my argument as to why a referendum must be given.
I could write about how I, and millions upon millions like me, have never had the opportunity to express an opinion on our membership, either by dint of not being born or not being at the age of majority at the time of the last referendum, and how the Prime Minister’s statement that we have already had a say is akin to basing a policy on the internet after inspecting one of Babbage’s difference engines.
I could point out the fact that the EU has failed to have its accounts signed off for almost two decades now, how whilst the nation states of Europe are reduced to penury, the EU votes itself ever larget budgets, about how the pattern of abuse of the expenses system by some MEP’s is well documented, how their fiscal projects have put a number of nations into bankruptcy, crippled with debt repayments unprecedented in history, that this has been done against their own laws and has almost dragged us down with them.
I could state that their behaviour and duplicity when the Constitution/Lisbon treaty was being steamrollered through is anti-democratic at best and the actions of a Stalinist Soviet at worst.
I could draw attention to the practices of adhering to the regulations as set out by the EU makes life very difficult for businesses, especially small businesses – the life blood of our economy, and in many cases financially impossible.
I could highlight the costs of our membership, both in terms of taxation taken from the public and the expense of complying with ever more intrusive and complex edicts and directives from the EU.
Whilst I believe all these points are important, I think the matter comes down to a basic and vital question; Are we sovereign?
Ever closer union has only one logical outcome – a complete political union where the nation states are reduced to the level of federal states. It is all very well for Messers Cameron, Hague and Duncan-Smith to talk about re-negotiations, saying no or not allowing any further steps, but they are trying to negotiate a rebate on the lunch money the playground bully has taken from them, and I am not convinced that what is said at conference is said in Brussels.
Mr. Brazier, the question of the UK’s continued existence as an independent and sovereign state is at stake here, and the citizens of the UK must be allowed to deliver a binding verdict on the subject, it cannot be signed away on the strength of the cabinet at the time knowing ‘what is best’, and that verdict must be allowed to be delivered without fear of retribution or sanction from the EU if Parliament or the electorate return the ‘wrong’ decision in the eyes of the EU.
You will no doubt not be surprised to read that in any such referendum I would vote for our withdrawal, favouring as I do a pure free trade model as espoused by Lord Tebbit. However, those who hold a contrary view to mine simply must be able to express it to get this issue sorted once and for all.
I look forward to your response.