The politicians have lied to us

Sir – with so many still considering their precious vote for June 23rd, a vote which is of no business of the politicians who have been lying to us in bucketfuls. We have to look at the history and perhaps reasons how to vote now.

It Started with Ted Heath lying to our Nation, then it was carried on with John Major and perhaps Edwina Curry found time to sign away more Treaty’s and our Sovereignty, carried on by the Man-Of-War Tony Blair who not only Lied over Iraq but oversaw the Open-Door immigration Policy to the UK, supported by the Tories which has been used to suppress wages by a supply of cheap labour from Europe yet without upsetting the Unions, and is where we are today. With thousands of Zero Hour Jobs on low wages, and with Cameron desperately fighting for his Job not our future.

But the support to Remain is really about the past Political guilt which all the politicians past and present deservedly carry.

So as they only have one vote the same as each of us, they are about to find out that we the people are capable of running our country even though currently we have politicians not fit for the purpose.

Britain is a great nation we have successfully survived two world wars and we must win this battle on June 23rd to take back control of our own borders. Please Vote LEAVE.

Brian Hunt

Worcester

Vote Remain for the planet

SIR – The Green Party is calling on voters, who care about the environment and tackling climate change, to vote for the UK to remain in the European Union.

Creating common standards across Europe ensures that all governments – particularly our own, with its dreadful environmental record – meet the need for action on climate change and other environmental crises that we face – crises that don’t stop at national borders.

The Brexit campaign leadership (Gove and Farage) is dominated by climate sceptics, with a terrible track record on renewable energy and undermining climate action. They deny the scientific evidence on climate change, just as they deny the economic and environmental risks of leaving the EU.

Michael Gove tried to remove climate change from the national curriculum, an indefensible attempt to prevent our young people being informed about the overwhelming scientific consensus on the subject. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage and UKIP want to abolish the Climate Change Act and have expressed total opposition to wind power.

The Green Party’s campaign is focusing on our membership’s central place in maintaining and enhancing workers’ rights, and on the capacity and actions of the EU in reining in the abuses of tax-dodging, low-paying multinational companies.

Cllr Louis Stephen

Worcester Green Party

MP should be proud of mum

SIR – How interesting to read MP Mark Garnier’s severe criticism of his late mother’s political views because she was a founder member of UKIP (Worcester News June 11).

He should be very proud of her vision, patriotism and independent spirit.

A few years ago, the then major political parties embroiled themselves in a squabble over their idea of the ‘Politically Correct Middle Ground’! This meant that vital issues like the EU, Border Control, Security, Immigration, and Population were considered too-hot-to-handle and were never discussed.

Thanks to UKIP, citizens of the UK can now discuss these topics freely and will be able to express their views in this month’s EU Referendum.

Martyn Wheeler

St. Peter’s, Worcester

Time to make your mind up

SIR – With just days to go before polling day in the referendum it really is make your mind up time.

This campaign has been as passionate as it has at times been petty, personal and puerile. I have done my utmost to make my contributions to the debate to the facts whilst trying not to get too shrill and personal.

Last night after question time, long after most of your readers had gone to bed I watched Andrew Neil’s this week. If you can I recommend that you catch up on I Player. The well known money adviser Martin Lewis made a totally dispassionate and impartial risk assesment of the pros and cons of remaining or leaving.

He weighed up whether the merits of remaining out weighed the benefits of leaving. looking at the benefits of the single market, inward investment and crucially the freedom of movement and its impact on immigration.

When looking at the stall that the leave camp have set up he came to the following conclusions. Although saying that leaving might not have a long term negative effect the length of time before our economy recovered from an inevitable dip was deeply problematic.

Trade agreements not only with the EU. but the 53 nations across the world that we enjoy through our EU. membership would have to be renegotiated.

He looked carefully at “doing a Norway” , a model promoted by the leave campaign. This would still require the UK. to make contributions to Brussels without any return and crucially we would still have freedom of movement into the UK. for EU. citizens. This means that we still couldn’t achieve the bexiteers ambitions to limit immigration.

To conclude he said that there are powerful arguments both ways but on balance he concluded that it was 55%- 45% in favour of remaining.

Clive Smith

Malvern

Sovereignty is all or nothing

SIR – It was a great spectacle to watch the Queen’s Birthday celebrations with so many Commonwealth countries taking part discarded so effortlessly on order to join the so-called Common Market.

And particularly as the EU Referendum is only days away. I still firmly understand “sovereignty” to be an absolute rather than a relative term so that we either we have it in full or we do not.

Wendy Hands

Upton-upon-Severn

Europe’s aim always clear

SIR – Anyone who says that in 1975 they voted to remain in just a trading bloc must have been too busy watching The Sweeney or The Good Life to have read the pamphlets. These pamphlets, both for and against, make the objectives of the European project pretty obvious and, 41 years later, the arguments look very familiar.

Derek Fearnside

Worcester

Word wonder

SIR – I was interested in your choice of language in an article in today’s Worcester News. In the story of a Droitwich woman who had moved to Turkey, you described her as an “expat”. Would you have described a Turkish person moving to Droitwich as an expat or an immigrant?

Just wondering.

SUE JOHNS

Ombersley