A Right to Answer Back

Someone whose comment, on the BBC’s have your say, I pinched for a post a little while back has sent me his retort to my comments. As his reply languishes in a place none of you will see it, I thought it only fair to publish it here with my replies: As someone quoted in the BBC talkback, I thought maybe I should have a chance to talkback.

The UK is not the leader of an empire any more. True "independence", means nothingness. We are basically a pisspot little island, and should we break from the EU, we would be so sidelined as to be an absolute nothingness.

The fact that we are still one of the largest economies in the world, are members of G8, we have nuclear weapons and a permanent seat on the security council are all of no importance? Besides, who cares if it is true. I am not very interested in my country's standing in the world.

Business wants to invest in something that can provide European coverage, and if investing in the UK, meant merely reaching out to the rather pathetic total of population that consists the UK, no'one would bother.

There is no reason why the UK cannot provide European coverage without having to be a member of the EU. In addition, as I said before, our market is still one of the most important. 60 Million wealthy people is small compared to the total in the EU but is still significant.

The 'I' in UKIP actually means Insignificance. A party campaigning entirely on the single issue that tries to capture the "good old days" of hegemony. Well, get this... It doesn’t exist any more.

UKIP, of which I am not a member, includes people with many different reasons for disliking the EU. I doubt many of them are longing for the days of empire. It is actually those most traumatized by the loss of Empire that think we need Europe as a replacement. I don’t think we need either.

We no longer rule the world, and if we break away from Europe, we will become the next Nauru. Nothing more than a pisspot little island who imagined the greatness and money from the past will bring about future value. Like Nauru, our wealth would disappear into bankruptcy.

Nauru depleted its natural resources and found nothing to replace them. It also has a population smaller than many of Britain’s towns and is located in the middle of nowhere. Apart from it’s island status it bears no similarity whatsoever to the UK. Being detached by geography from Europe, why would ANY company want to invest their European presence in a tiny nothingness of an Island not even part of the EU? Reasons to want to invest in the UK:

• Large domestic market.
• English Language
• Major European Financial centre
• More flexible employment laws than European Neighbours
• Close to major European markets.
• Good trading links with the entire world.
• Relatively friendly business climate.

I could go on. The point is that whilst we need access to European markets, we need non of the baggage that comes with it.

Anti EU constitution, (which is what we were talking about), comes from narrow minded little xenophobic people like you.

Xenophobic like the French Socialists that voted against it or the 63% of Dutch voters who said no? Just calling us xenophobic worked for a while but it has stopped working. We haven’t gone away and hid under a rock. It may have slipped you notice, but the more eurosceptic elements of the political spectrum were bigger supporters of enlargement, than the Federasts. Its not foreigners we don’t like but the concept of a supranational state.

The constitution, if you bothered to actually read it, actually engrains the idea of national sovereignty. But you did not read it, which is why you promote a party borne of daily mail readers. Rather than promote fascist, anti EU propaganda, why not point out exactly what parts of the CONSTITUTION, you do not like. Oh yeah, I forgot. You can't do this, because you haven't actually read it

I have regularly pointed out parts of the constitution that I don’t like, but as you have only just found my blog I will indulge you. The Constitution has basically two parts, that which is a repetition of previous treaties and that which is new. Firstly the previous treaties, as we were never given an opportunity to vote on these, it is perfectly valid to reject the treaty based on these issues. We can’t for the moment get rid of them, but there is no reason for accept them as Fait Accompli. If people think that we have already come too far, why should they vote yes to go further. As for new things. I do not want an EU foreign policy and the apparatus that goes with it. I don’t believe that we can create a common front and so we (meaning any EU members) will either pay for something that has no use or will be shoe horned into policies that we don’t agree with. I think that the charter of fundamental rights is a shopping list of socialist policies and has no place in a constitution. These are issue to be decided at each general election not set in stone. I think there are already too many areas of QMV so I do not wish to see any more. I especially dislike the ratchet clause. If at any time, all 25 governments agree to give up a veto, that area comes under QMV. Once given up, it cannot be taken back without unanimous vote. This is an attempt to creep into new areas without the need for a treaty. I do not like the fact that Nation States can only legislate if the EU allows them. Oh and you little jibe about fascism doesn’t hurt in the least. I am a classical liberal, I believe in small governments and free trade. As such it was people like me that Hitler hated even more than Communists. Fascism requires a strong state and mercantilist economic policies. Without wishing to stretch a point, this description fits our opponents much closer than it fits us. Oh and I have read it. Inspiring was it not? No actually it was a turgid piece of legalese. I am glad it is dead.