A letter to eurofacts which was published on 20th October 2006.

Your report (eurofacts, 22nd September) on the findings of the cost-benefit analysis for Switzerland of EU membership, commissioned by the Swiss government, prompts one to wonder what if anything will induce any likely British government to do the same for Britain.

One piece of data which would, I believe, resonate well with the British public is that for the last several years the aggregate trade with the EU of the United States, Canada and Australia is broadly the same as Britain’s.  If you add in Japan, the aggregate comfortably exceeds Britain’s, yet these four countries pay precisely nothing to the EU for the privilege.  Their trade relations with the EU are subject only to the rules of the World Trade Organisation to which virtually all countries and organisations involved in trade, including the EU, belong.

The so-called ‘Single Market’ may or may not be an advantage for those countries selling into EU countries but it is not something countries outside the EU feel they should pay for.

When put this way, a very wide range of people would, I believe, actively question our EU membership and its colossal annual fee (£12 billion and rising), particularly when this government cannot, apparently, afford proper provision for the care of our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan or pay them properly.

A letter to eurofacts which was published on 11th March 2005.

After its behaviour in the North East referendum, the Electoral Commission’s approval of the Government’s choice of question in the Referendum Bill was hardly unexpected, but the Conservative leadership’s endorsement of the question is extraordinary.

As you say, the question implies the Treaty establishing the Constitution is something remote from the British citizen – like say the treaty which established the International Maritime Organisation – while the reality is totally different.  As big a difference in fact as lies between the two questions, “Do you approve of the marriage of the Prince of Wales to Mrs Parker Bowles?” and “Would you like to marry the Prince of Wales/Mrs Parker Bowles?”

Any referendum question should reflect the reality of the change in the status quo.  In this case the simplest question which does this is: “Do you agree the proposed Constitution for the European Union should apply to the United Kingdom?”  This question, with its focus on the application of the Constitution to the United Kingdom, would also force the Electoral Commission to tackle the issue of informing the people about the main provisions of the Constitution, e.g. Clauses I-6 to I-16.

A letter to eurofacts which was published on 11th October 1996.

One appreciates the general drift of John Murray’s article eurofacts (13th September) refuting allegations of English xenophobia, but to do this it is not necessary to assert tht “Our present Queen, like Victoria, has no trace of English blood”.

After the Norman conquest, the direct English royal line was re-established by Henry II, grandson of Henry I and of Matilda, daughter of St Margaret, Queen of Scotland.  St Margaret was great grand-daughter of Ethelred II (the unready), the great grandson of Alfred the Great.  Likewise, while Henry VII was indeed grandson of Owen Tudor, his mother was the great great grand-daughter of Edward III, direct descendent of Henry II.

Finally, to complete the line to our present monarch, George I (of Hanover) was the great grandson of James I, who was great grandson of Henry VII.

Our present Queen is in fact the great (34 times) grand-daughter of Alfred the Great, which works out at an average of exactly 30 years per generation.