A letter to the Spectator Magazine which was published on 3rd December 2005.

Sheila Donaldson (Letters, 26th November) is dead right to characterise David Cameron’s leadership bid as back to the centrist cosy politics of past Tory grandees like his Oxford patrons Douglas Hurd and Chris Patten.

When finally pinned down by John Humphrys on the Today programme about what actual steps he would take to implement his agenda, the very first thing Cameron came out with was ‘increase the representation of women in Parliament’.  That really is going to be a big help for our country, facing a huge gap between energy needs and affordable supplies, a massive and growing trade deficit, and a pensions crisis getting worse with each month of inaction.  On none of these crucial survival issues did David Cameron have the slightest thing to say.  How lightweight can you get?

A letter to the Daily Telegraph which was published on 11th February 1992.

It was written by Mrs Gillian Bush at the time when MPs had not yet been able to obtain copies of the Maastricht Treaty which they were having to debate and vote on.

As a member of the Campaign for an Independent Britain I have been able to study photocopies of the Maastricht Treaties (letter, Feb. 7th).

Among many worrying features which have not been made known to the public is that Article A (1) of the draft Treaty on European Union designates each one of us “a citizen of the Union”. This “Union” lacks an appropriate new name. A fellow member has suggested – “Euroslavia”. Thus our new nationality, to go with the new flag which Mr Hurd unveiled (report, Feb. 6th) must be that of “Euroslave”.

The flag appropriately shows the British lion feebly protesting with his tongue out while the stars of the other union members firmly clamp him.

A letter to the Times which was published on 28th April 1990.

Ronald Butt said (article, April 25th) that it is inconceivable that Britain should leave the EC.  But why is it inconceivable?  Politicians in the original EC Six have repeatedly said they want plitical union – a United States of Europe.  Why not believe they mean what they say, rather than keep asking what they really mean?

What they mean is a sovereign republican Government to which national governments would be subordinate and to which foreign countries such as the USSR and USA would accredit their diplomatic representatives.  The Queen, while remaining the supreme symbol of law-making and parliamentary sovereignty in 10 other Commonwealth countries, would no longer have that role in Britain, her native land.

It is perfectly pointless therefore for the British Government to join in talks on political union, if it is determined, as the Prime Minister and Mr Hurd have repeatedly said, to uphold the sovereignty of the Queen in Parliament – an undertaking incidentally which every MP swears to uphold.

Instead of a futile effort to deflect the deep-felt wish of many Continental countries to unite, the Government would better spend its effort in thinking through Commissioner Andriessen’s proposal last year that Britain and Denmark should resume membership of a European Free Trade Association, enlarged to take in the countries of Eastern Europe and linked to the EC in a wider European Economic Space (EES) as he suggested.

This proposal offers us: retention of our independence; free trade and technical co-operation with the whole of Europe; removal of the huge drain on our balance of payments represented by the European Community charge (£4.5 billion last year); escape from the common agricultural policy; freedom to make our own trade agreements with our historic trading partners in the rest of the world; relief from the everlasting EC wrangles.  What more could we possibly want?