Letters: July 20, 2016

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

You’ve got me wrong

I WRITE in response to the letter from Des Morgan published in the Advertiser on 13th July in which Mr Morgan accuses me of using linguistic sophistry (the use of false arguments with the intention of deceiving) concerning comments I made in my letter on July 8 regarding the lack of legitimacy of the referendum result, due to the disingenuous and deceitful Leave campaign.

I am disappointed at finding myself having to correct Mr Morgan for the second time in recent weeks.

He claims that I stated that all 17 million leave voters based their decision regarding which way to vote on a pack of lies.

I did not. The exact wording in my letter was ‘it is obvious that many many people based their decision regarding which way to vote upon those lies.’

Mr Morgan then goes on to refer to the first time I had to correct his misrepresentation of my words over the potential for job losses as a result of a leave vote.

He chooses to quote only a small part of a statement I made in my letter of June 11, and in doing so totally misrepresents what I said.

I stated clearly in my letter that not all of the 3.5 million jobs involved with exports to the EU would be lost, but as we could not know in advance which ones would be lost, all were at risk.

That is a very different proposition to the one Mr Morgan claims I made.

He also attempts to claim that in my opinion scaremongering is a legitimate form of lying.

Again, I made no such claim, but rather pointed out that warning people about a risk is not lying, even if you call it scaremongering.

A risk is still a risk, even if the consequences do not come to fruition, or indeed, when you disagree that such a risk exists.

Unfortunately, and very sadly, this particular risk has come to fruition as people have subsequently lost their jobs as a result of the leave vote (an example would be the closure of the Lush factory in Poole).

One has to ask why he chooses to misrepresent my words several times in such a manner.

Could it be because he has no counter arguments? Or perhaps because it is Mr Morgan who is attempting to deceive?

If the reason is the latter then Mr Morgan’s letter exemplifies the very dishonesty and deceit that I complained about 8th July, but either way, Mr Morgan

Clearly he needs to stop misrepresenting the views of myself (and possibly others) in this way. I would thank Mr Morgan not to attempt to do so again.

Whatever Mr Morgan may claim, any objective assessment of the referendum campaign would recognise and conclude that the leave campaign was very dishonest, deceitful and disingenuous from start to finish.

This in turn would lead any objective observer to conclude that the result may be seriously flawed as a result and is therefore questionable.

This is why the result lacks legitimacy in the eyes of so many.

If Mr Morgan wishes to protest this I suggest that he directs his comments to those that perpetrated the dishonesty such as Nigel Farage, Michael Gove, Boris Johnson and perhaps also in a mirror!

ADAM POOLE

Savill Crescent

Wroughton

....

It was made very clear

YOUR correspondent John Lewis must have been living in a different world to the rest of the population if he truly believes that the dangers of Brexit were not made clear prior to the June 23 vote.

The government spent £9m producing a one-sided leaflet offering a picture of doom and gloom for the future of the UK while their friends at the CBI and in the finance houses of London offered a picture of a broken Britain.

To add drama to the supposed crisis the then-chancellor threatened an emergency budget of apocalyptic proportions and his friend at the Bank of England cited higher mortgage rates as the penalty for voting Leave.

Amazingly, the UK has not descended into ruin, companies are not running to mainland Europe, the FTSE 100 fell but soon recovered and is now above pre-June 23 levels.

Mortgages are also being offered at their lowest ever rates.

Many companies which joined in the ‘fear’ campaign are now declaring their full confidence in the UK with assurances that they will continue to invest in this country.

There is nothing at all inevitable about the UK having to accept free movement of people from the EU in return for access to the single market.

Let’s be very clear that the Leave campaign never suggested a total block on immigration, what it demanded was the right of the UK to determine and manage the level of immigration.

The pound has indeed fallen against the Euro and US dollar which produces two effects, the first is that it makes UK exports better value for buyers.

On the other hand it makes going on holiday a little more expensive; perhaps that might persuade some people to stay at home and spend more in this country.

With regard to Scotland – Mrs Sturgeon is honour bound to seek another referendum, that’s how she sees her role as the leader of the SNP.

However, just prior to the EU referendum, even though they knew there would be a vote on the UK’s membership of the EU, the Scots voted by a significant majority to remain part of the UK.

They were then asked, as part of the UK to vote Leave or Remain. I don’t think Mrs May is going to concede another referendum to Mrs Sturgeon’s nationalists.

I am sorry Mr Lewis feels the alleged downsides of leaving the EU were not made clear before polling day, clearly that was a matter for the government and its very willing and wealthy band of supporters to manage.

More than 17 million people who took part in what was the largest voter turnout for decades decided that the EU was not for them – to suggest they made their decision in a state of ignorance would be to denigrate their ability to determine for themselves whether their future was better served by being in or out.

DES MORGAN

Caraway Drive, Swindon

....

We are still in Europe

MARGARET Hudson actually has made a good point regarding peace in Europe and the EU, and she is in good company.

It was Winston Churchill who was the first to call for a United Europe in his famous ‘speech to the academic youth’ in Zurich in 1946 in which his aim was to eliminate the European ills of nationalism and wars.

He actually called for a “United States of Europe.” These are not my words but Churchill’s.

He also added that sovereignty does not conflict but complement the idea.

After the war he wanted to get rid of the “mistakes of the past and look to the future.’ He also had concerns about the UK against the big powers.

Churchill became an active campaigner for Europe’s cause. This largely contributed to the Council Of Europe in 1949 and to the Common Market.

So it can be said it did contribute to peace in Europe.

The idea for Europe to get along was that with economic/trading ties countries are less likely to fight in the first place.

Nato as you suggested is military/political (my father worked for Nato in the design of the Tornado fighter – a combined project between the UK,Germany and Italy).

Bill has missed that the point I was making with regard to his statement was that the war dead ‘didn’t die in vain’ – he weaved that statement into the leave vote decision and did it again in his reply.

I would feel the same whatever result it was, to bring such a statement into a debate over a EU referendum.

Whether we are in the EU, fighting or working together we are still part of Europe – and a strong economic and stable Europe is good for everyone.

A couple of other points looking at Bill’s letters.

He says Article 50 should be carried out immediately. I have no doubt that behind the scenes there are all sorts of secret meetings going on – there always are.

We also need to get a careful plan and good deals in place – so preparation is key, not jumping straight in.

On that point, a government Brexit Department will be created.

Think of all the admin, all the lawyers it will need, how expensive they will be, how much money they will make.

Wonder if I have left it too late for a career change? Probably.

I can see Bill is cross by the tone of his letters. I appreciate people get entrenched in a certain viewpoint but to write that Nicola Sturgeon is ‘thicker that she looks’ is just rude.

I just wish I remembered or recognised this Utopia we lived in before the EU. Born in the ‘50s in the north of England there was no wealth or jobs, there was economic decline.

In the late ‘60s and ‘70s we tried three times before we were let into the Common Market (EU) as that economy was stronger.

I suspect, after all the fighting and arguing has died down in about three years, both the EU (after reforms by Angela Merkel) and the UK will both end up with smaller markets.

There will be a bigger growing market, probably the US that will take advantage of the infighting – it has historically.

Hopefully, we won’t have a ‘special relationship,’ it has lost us millions in the past.

Then 20 years from now – when we oldies have departed from this mortal toil – as there are such strong feelings from the majority of the younger generation, including the 15 to 16-year-olds, I expect they will demand their own referendum and the circle will all start all over again.

PAULINE MCCARTHY

Langdale Drive, Swindon

....

Is parishing the way?

WHATEVER the rights and wrongs of parishing it’s all happening the wrong way round.

If all parts of Swindon were parished, those parishes could, if they wished, increase their precepts to enable their areas to maintain the children’s centres and libraries which are closing or under the threat of closure.

Why can’t the council borrow enough money to keep them all going? The sum would not be large in the context of existing borrowing.

Then, when the parishing matter is decided, they’ll still be there for the parishes to keep open if they choose – and can afford.

If they decide not to and the closures go ahead, we’re no worse off than we would have been. What’s not to like?

CHRIS BARRY

The Bramptons, Swindon