Grossbritannien Erwache!

History is back.

We live in an illusory world of consequence-free choices that is about to come to an end, and whether we like it or not.
In the next days and weeks the future - and the very meaning - of our nation will be decided. Nothing less than that. Civil wars were once fought at times like these. They may be again.
Did Leavers ever imagine that we would ever be forced into the foul maw of such a man as Donald Trump? LOOK what he is doing! Look at his arrogance, at his ignorance, at his narcissism, at his lies, at his filthy, grasping, childlike little hands, stained with his own shit and the worst detritus of modern life - at his disrespect and contempt for civilised values everywhere and not least those that created the United States of America.
Then step back a year.
Blessed with foresight, would ANYONE have exchanged the imperfections and inconveniences of the European Union (for many and such they are, but my God they PALE beside this!) to become the junior partner of the type of demagogue and the kind of ideology which is anathema to this nation's soul and which - in the end and often despite our rulers - we have always opposed?
Are we so IGNORANT that we see no comparisons between the state of the World now and the 1930s?
Are we so COMPLACENT that we will let our democratic representatives stand around wringing their hands rather than confronting with straight backs and sharp arguments the absurdity of this coming nightmare?
Are we so SELFISH that we see none but ourselves? Not just refugees, though God knows we need to, but the French, the Dutch and the Germans who all have crucial elections this year and whom we can energise by having the guts to turn our sinking ship back to port before it's too late; and not least those Americans - the MAJORITY of Americans - who are right now showing their disgust for what is being done to their country.
And do we lack the PATRIOTISM to challenge those of our own base nationalists who are so righteously bent on stealing the few rags we have left?
No pacts with the Devil! Fight. Fight BACK!
Lobby your MP to vote with their conscience and their patriotism not their narrow fears. Embarrass them: it won't be hard! Quit whingeing on social media and DO something. Make your voice heard. Argue. Debate. Show some PASSION for Christ's sake.
History is back. Be part of it or lie down under it.

You couldn't make this up - so in the UK we don't.

The Daily Telegraph, 11th January 

NHS to recruit hundreds of GPs from Poland, Lithuania and Greece

Only in the UK. And only for the time being. "Taking Back Control"?

Quitters: when will you wake up and see that we ALREADY have control over this dangerous fiasco as well as many others, and that this kind of thing is the result.

Appeasers - by whom I mean Remainers who are too scared of Quitters to save their nation: we live at a historic moment so get off the bloody floor, show some character, be brave, consult your consciences not your ratings - and make history instead of lying down in front of it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/01/11/nhs-recruit-hundreds-gps-poland-lithuania-greece/?WT.mc_id=tmg_share_tw

Brexit: email exchange with Lord Desai, Labour peer.

Lord Desai is also an academic and political philosopher. His House of Lords profile can be seen here:
https://www.parliament.uk/biographies/lords/lord-desai/2699

As with Lord Ashdown, this begins with his response to my email to Parliamentarians posted the other day.

Comments are welcome.


Lord Desai:

I voted Remain. Yet I think most of your objections arise not from the process of Referendum but the result which you do not like. Would you have written to me had Remain won as to how faulty the whole process is ? 


My reply:

Dear Lord Desai,

Thank you for your reply.

To answer your question, in all honesty probably not, though I would have heaved a huge sigh of relief given the problems I describe, most of which I identified before or during the campaign and wrote about then. I admit that I missed a trick on the issue of the majority required, although that doesn’t of itself invalidate it as a concern.

On that  subject, my motive for writing to you says nothing either for or against the validity of the points I raise. So would you care to address them?

Yours,

Peter Roberts

Lord Desai:

I believe referenda will become increasingly the device for decision making. Representative democracy which held the lead for three hundred years ( despite a lack of universal adult franchise till the 1920's) is now not trustee to reflect the opinion of many people. Of course their opinion is ill informed but whose fault is that if not of the political system which I'll educates them before during and after schooling. With social media, it will become very soon a device for frequent consultations. Then one may ask about the size of the majority require red ( not raised in the First Past the Post system ) , or a regulation on 'truth' in propaganda ( not raised in elections generally ) . But referenda have now arrived.

Edmund Burke's speech is the most incredibly elitist . He more or less said elect me and I wil do what I please. The times have changed. People don't tolerate that sort of arrogance.

If Cameron called the Referendum was 'illegitimate' how many other decisions in any parliament are also not so ? This is part of our politics. The Prime Minister has to retain his leadership and listen to dissidents. If it was accepted by his Party and then Parliament what is illegitimate about it ? Again you take an idealist position because you did not like the result. Harold Wilson called the 1975?Referendum for the same reason. Nicola Sturgeon called her referendum to  keep her Party happy. 

My reply:

Dear Lord Desai,

Thank you for your reply and may I say that really I appreciate your willingness to debate the matter.

To take the points you raise in your emails:

Burke established a principle that may or may not be used in an arrogant manner; it is, however, carefully expressed (“doing as I  please” is far removed from considering a matter thoroughly and conscientiously). It is in practice open to discussion and therefore potential correction. Rather than an idealist position, I think it allows for flexibility and adaptability. Making representatives mere delegates does not. Worse – as we have seen - it encourages both dishonesty and dumbing down in the pitches made to the electorate. Burke’s principle isn’t perfect and is of course open to charlatans, but I find it greatly preferable to the increasing use of popular democracy and referendums to which you appear to be resigned and which seems even more of a blank cheque for more ethically challenged politicians. (Although it seems that you aren’t keen on the prospect either, which relieves me somewhat.)

As a teacher and youth worker I certainly agree with you that much more will have to be done to better the education of young people, whatever the future of democracy. It seems a long time ago - and a world away - when Richard Hoggart coined the happy term “critical literacy” in the hope that people’s first question of the powerful was to ask whether they were trying to con them. That itself implies developed faculties for discrimination – but could these not be described as “elitist”? If so, let’s have more not less of it!

Regarding your citing of the Realpolitik of Wilson's and Sturgeon’s approaches to holding referendums, that’s food for thought and I’d like to consider it. I was too young to take a view of or even much remember the 1975 EU Referendum campaign, but I challenge whether we should tolerate such cynicism at any time when playing with stakes of this size. Again, this is not for me an idealist position but one of great practicality that needs clear and mandatory safeguards in place. That first Cameron’s political party and then  legislators passed his proposals remains a stain on the quality of our political class and I’m afraid I am not as sanguine about that or the populist future as you appear to be.

Best regards,

Peter Roberts

Lord Desai

It is not cynical to say that a leader takes into account his own party's internal divisions to resort to a Referendum. Parties are the lifeblood of politics and we have to accept them as they are.

My point about Burke was that today with a widespread franchise and educated public, doing your own thing as MP ( which is what Burke was saying albeit in elegant language) is not on. With social media, demands for direct democracy will multiply. People would want frequent consultations on important subjects and express their opinion online. The very model of Representative Democracy is being questioned. And a good thing too. 

My reply:

Dear Lord Desai,

I'm afraid I'll have to ask you to justify your comment that "It is not cynical to say that a leader takes into account his own party's internal divisions to resort to a Referendum. Parties are the lifeblood of politics and we have to accept them as they are." This isn't just because I fail to see how the second sentence follows from the first, but also out of sheer amazement that you should consider valid the practice of risking the irrevocable future direction of a nation for narrow party electoral advantage! This is what Cameron did. I am, to use an unparliamentary expression, gobsmacked. Over to you.

I'd also like to know why you think it a good thing that representative democracy should be challenged and superseded by direct democracy. Not whether you think this will happen - you clearly do and you may well be right - but why, in your view, direct democracy will be better. I fail to see how Burke's principle doesn't and shouldn't still apply - not as rigid prescription but as living and evolving praxis. Direct democracy - as well as being impracticable - would be neither.

Your contention that we have an "educated public" is at odds with your earlier statement that we have collectively done a bad job in educating people (with which I agree), and I think that the Referendum showed this rather well. I hope that neither of us will be so extremely relativist as to deny that our "educated public" were successfully sold some visibly damaged goods. Since the Referendum I have personally tried to engage a number of Leave voters in intelligent debate. The results haven't been pretty and are certainly not printable here. 

I hadn't wanted to mention this, but another thing in Burke's defence is that, whether or not one likes or agrees with him, at least he WAS elected, however limited the franchise at the time. Personally I'm much less concerned than I used to be about the fact that members of the House of Lords - including yourself - aren't. This is in part because I respect the fact that many of you - yourself most certainly included - have long, expert and relevant experience and therefore ARE qualified to participate in the legislative process. I'm sure Burke would agree. But, since you have criticised "elitism", I don't mean to be rude but, while your presence in the Lords is justified in my eyes, how do you justify it in yours?

Best regards,
Peter

Lord Desai

Thanks. The last Furst as it is personal. I have been in favour of an elected a House of Lords for over twenty years and have spoken repeatedly about it.

As to the other issues I will revert. But as you may know there us no definitive answer in these matters. We will just have to differ

My reply:

Dear Lord Desai,

I'm not sure what you mean by "revert". Do you mean that our conversation is over? That would be a pity.

Since democracy is about open debate rather than just voting, I'd really appreciate it if you would take me on. Since we both clearly DO believe that there is a definitive answer to this question (it's a binary one: I think Parliamentarians should vote against Brexit and you don't), that means one of us must be wrong. I'll happily admit that it's me if you can convince me, I promise!

Best regards,
Peter

Lord Desai:

No. Just that I will write on a day or two

Lord Desai:

I am not 'taking you on'. We cannot 'settle' this one way or another. We can only express our views and agree to differ. Parliamentarians will do what seems to them right. The House  of Commons has ratified the Referendum result last month. If the Supreme Court upholds the High Court decision, Parliament will have a debate before the Government invokes Article 50.

The issue still is that you don't like the result hence you object to the process. I don't like the result but I accept it because I respect the process.

After  all Parliament passed the legislation for the Referendum. More people turned out to vote than have done in General a Elections lately. The majority share at 52% is higher than any winning party has got in Post war elections. We have had numerous plebiscites in the last forty two years- 1975, Scottish a Devolution 1978, Northern Ireland 1998 , Scotland devolution 1999 ( or thereabout) , Wales devolution Referendum ( sometime around early 2000 ? ) , Referendum on First Past the Post 2011 ? , Scottish Independence Referendum 2015 and finally EU Referendum 2026. We may not be 'a plebiscitary democracy' but we do decide big issues by Referendum.

Regards.

My reply:

Dear Lord Desai,

By “take me on” I was being provocative, but I genuinely do mean that I am open to persuasion. I agree that we can bash away at each other to no avail, and clearly we both have strong opinions on this, but at the very least we are oxygenating our respective pools so I remain grateful that you are debating with me. I still aim to convince you though.

That said, I have to correct you again about the relationship between my case and my motives: even though, like most people, I didn’t expect to lose it, I objected to the Referendum process well before June. (I’ll send a link to my Blog – please judge it by its contents not my lack of followers!). But even if I hadn't, proof of motive does not of itself invalidate an argument.

You write that Parliamentarians will do what they think is right. I certainly hope so and this is the very point I’m making, for we already know what the majority in both Houses think is right: that the UK should remain in the EU. Or did you mean (as Paddy Ashdown has written in his response to my original email) that they will do what they see as politically prudent (I was going to write “politically correct” or even “the line of least resistance”) which is quite another thing? I believe that if they exercise the representative principle to which almost all pay lip service - even Steve Baker MP, a co-founder of Leave.eu, has told me he follows it – they should oppose Brexit. If they place fear of opprobrium over exercising their conscience, I think they offend the principle and should stop telling us they believe in it.

Moreover, if Parliamentarians had wanted to deny themselves the option of rejecting the Referendum result, why was it not made mandatory? (The 2011 AV Referendum result was.) It would have been easy. So why enshrine a principle in law but not even consider that it may actually be applied? There are at best some very mixed messages coming from Westminster.

Citing the ‘No’ vote of 52% of the total as higher than any government has achieved is disingenuous: in general elections the vote is divided between multiple parties; the Referendum was a binary choice. Also I would remind you that many of those who made it a (relatively) high turnout don’t usually bother to vote. They are no paragons of democratic virtue and I question whether you should enlist their support.

Your references to various other referendums, including those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, give food for thought and I'd like to consider them further. From what I recall, though, both the circumstances of their calling and their conduct of the campaigns were considerably superior.

In the meantime, I do look forward to hearing from you.

Best regards,

Peter

Lord Desai:

There is no end to thus. You win. Let us put an end to this.

My reply:

Dear Lord Desai,

What a pity, but thank you for discussing the matter this far with me, a courtesy few have paid me. I believe you flatter me by saying that I've won, so let's call it a score draw or I fear I'll become quite unbearable.

For what it's worth, here is my Blog. http://spudpeel2.blogspot.co.uk/

I would very much like to put our exchange on it and trust you have no objection.

Best regards,
Peter

Brexit: email exchange with Lord Paddy Ashdown, former leader of the Liberal Democrats.

This begins with Lord Ashdown's response to my email to Parliamentarians of 9th January (see previous post). Comments are welcome.

From Paddy Ashdown

Thank you for this. 

But I fear I must  disagree with you. 

Of course the Referendum as was technically advisory. But it was the people advising Parliament and it would be a brave (and in my view foolish) Parliament, which should be a creature of the people’s will, to ignore the people’s advice. In this matter the legality is less important than the politics.

There are of course those who say the referendum was flawed because the legislation did not stipulate a higher threshold for a vote to leave than 50% plus 1 vote. This too I agree with and supported an amendment to this effect when the Bill came before Parliament. But this did not succeed, and so was not included in the law. The law may be wrong but it is the law and has to be obeyed.

Lastly there are those who say that we should not accept the outcome because people lied. But claims of lying are very common in elections, not least General Elections. One person's lying is another person's hyperbole and a third person's legitimate campaign clam. Absent a body which adjudicates on the truth in elections (which we don't have) we cannot I fear reject the outcome of the democratic process just because some people claim that the other side has been lying. Can you imagine what would happen if people felt entitled to reject the outcome of a General Election on the grounds that they believed someone lied. The whole of our democratic process would break down.

I believe we must accept  the Brexit judgement and seek to enact it in a manner which represents the best interest of the country (i.e. the best deal we can make of Brexit is to remain as close to the EU - especially the single market as we can).

It may be that the judgement of the people will change as they feel the effects of Brexit. In which case I for one will be campaigning to remain in the EU.

But in this matter it is the people who must lead Parliament, not the other way round.

The Article 50 legislation will soon come to Parliament. As you may know the Liberal Democrats, while not opposing the Bill in principle, we will insist through amendments that,  accepting that the result of the YES/NO referendum was to leave, the people should also be consulted about the destination which the Government chooses for our future outside the EU. What started with an act of democracy cannot end with a Government stitch up.

I am sorry we do not see eye to eye on this matter, but thank you for writing to me.

Paddy

My response:

Dear Lord Ashdown,

Thank you very much for your prompt and detailed response and for engaging me on the points I made. I realise you will be terrifically busy but I do hope you will indulge me by reading my answer.

I’m glad we agree that the EU Referendum was advisory not mandatory but I don’t share your belief that Parliament should be “the creature of the people’s will”. In my view this offends the principle of representative democracy - and we are a representative democracy, and moreover one threatened by a world more at risk from demagogic populism than at any time since the 1930s.

You write that “it is the people who must lead Parliament, not the other way round”. Why? There are plenty of occasions when Parliamentarians don’t vote as delegates, or under the party whip, but instead answer their individual consciences. Why should they be allowed this luxury on lesser matters but denied it when the whole future of our country, its people and the coming generations is at stake? That seems strange, perverse and, yes, cowardly to me. I believe that it’s precisely at such times that Parliament should represent [sic] the nation and be robust about it.

Nor do I agree with you that the legality is less important than the politics - and not just because you then go on to say with regard to the voting threshold that the law must be obeyed simply because it is the law! (That said, I appreciate and thank you for your attempt to stipulate a higher threshold. What a huge shame - in both senses of the word - that it was rejected.)

I believe I’m right that the 2011 Alternative Vote Referendum was mandatory. This immediately raises the question why the EU Referendum wasn’t? The matter was given much prior thought so there must have been a purpose. Therefore, rather than a “technicality” it is of great significance: why on earth would it be in a piece of legislation of such vast importance if there were no circumstances envisaged in which it would be used?

I agree with what you write about general elections with regard to the matter of lying and deception. But I question your comparison with referendums and with the EU Referendum in particular. In general elections voters compare and judge wide-ranging party manifestos. I’m sure that no politician (or even a party leader, although you would know better than I!) has ever agreed with everything in their manifesto. They are necessary compromises, as are electors’ decisions whether or not to vote for them. And political parties are scrutinised with regard to their promises. If they don’t deliver, or have been shown to have lied, they are responsible both to Parliament and, at the next election, the voters, who can throw them out. We don’t then ask whether one man’s lie is another’s truth, and I think that your reducing the matter to this level of relativism doesn't honour its seriousness.

Referendums are different: there is no way back once we leave, at least not in our lifetimes. Referendums ask a straight question. The entirety of each campaign is addressed to it with the aim of producing a single answer, here “Yes” or “No”. Once decided (assuming the result is mandatory, although I note again that this one isn’t!) then there won’t – or shouldn’t be – another bite at the cherry. That is why I ask you and all Remainers in Parliament to campaign to remain in the EU right now, before it is too late. It will be no use hoping, as you write, that people will see their folly after Brexit, nor to campaign to remain in the EU once we have left it. We will be out.

So while I can foresee a sad future moment when I might agree with that part of your final paragraph committing the Liberal Democrats to tabling amendments for a second referendum over the terms of Brexit, this for me is a weak and pusillanimous fall-back position to take now. The horse will have bolted.

We are at present surrounded by decent people with the right instincts and arguments wringing their hands over Brexit and justifying a truly disgraceful and nationally embarrassing travesty with procedural and technical arguments. That, if I may be bold, is a very fine example of what Leavers like to call “the Westminster bubble”. It is banal perhaps to quote Eliot’s wonderful but hackneyed phrase but I know none better: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.”

Perhaps you and your otherwise admirable colleagues, from all parties and none, don’t fully grasp why we need you to make a stand. Like millions, I swallowed the result of the AV Referendum - and have done many other retrograde disappointments over the years - and I’m not a natural law-breaker. It is simply that this is such a vast question, the Referendum campaign had so many and such grotesque flaws, and the consequences for our nation are so great and so dispiriting that we have to say enough is enough, and here we stand. And with our steadfast support behind you, we need you guys to get off that fence - because right now no one else is showing the moral and political courage to do so. That, I regret to say, is shameful.

With best regards,
Peter Roberts

Paddy Ashdown's response:

Thanks for/this.
Where we agree, I am grateful. Where we don't I fear we will just have to agree to disagree. But thanks for your detailed response and best wishes.

Paddy

My response:

Dear Lord Ashdown,

Thank you for your response. Although I am disappointed that you didn’t respond to my points I appreciate that you have many things to do.

I’ll continue to lobby in the hope that a core of Parliamentary resistance to Brexit can be found or encouraged.

As this has been a personal exchange, may I ask for your permission to share it with like-minded people? This would not be to score points or invite personal criticism of you, but because I would like to make those who think like me aware of the arguments being advanced by Remainers who are prepared to accept Brexit. I would preface any circulation with this caveat.

Good luck with your attempts to resist the most damaging effects of Brexit.

Yours,

Peter

Brexit: email to Parliamentarians, 9th January 2017 (Part 1: to 115 members of the House of Lords)

Dear ..... ,

I am writing to all Members of both Houses of Parliament in the hope that you will combine to reject the result of the Referendum of 23rd June 2016 and prevent Britain’s exit from the European Union.
I and millions of others are appalled at the stubbornness with which the Government is pushing ahead and its apparent desire to appease populist politicians and their followers rather than represent the nation’s best interests at this critical time.

I will be delighted to support you in any way I can, in which case please do contact me. Please also feel free to forward this email if you wish.

I summarise the case for rejecting the UK’s departure from the EU as follows. I greatly hope that you will find the time to consider it.

1. Above all, the UK is a representative democracy not a plebiscitary democracy.
This is something of which to be rightly proud and we should defend it robustly. Parliamentarians are representatives not delegates. The principle was best set out by Edmund Burke to the Bristol electors in 1774, and I’m sure it’s familiar to you. It can be read here:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/foun…/documents/v1ch13s7.html

Most Parliamentarians pay at least lip service to this defining constitutional principle. We know already that the majority of both Houses of Parliament, after years and often decades to review the matter, believe that the UK should stay the EU in the national interest. All you have to do is be brave enough to honour Burke’s principle and thus your consciences, and vote to do so.

2. The reason for calling the Referendum was illegitimate.
Fearing a high UKIP vote at the 2015 General Election, David Cameron put the short-term benefit of his political party over the long-term benefit of the nation, including the integrity of the United Kingdom itself. I do not make a party-political point when I ask you to agree that this was a shameful thing to do.

3. The Referendum’s threshold for change was set too low.
No respectable organisation would let a constitutional change of this size and impact be decided by a simple majority of those who turned out to vote. If this principle holds for a youth club committee then it surely holds for a major nation of 60 million people.

4. Voters did not make an informed choice in the Referendum.
As has been clearly shown since June, even those who led the Referendum campaigns didn’t know what the choice entailed! How therefore can the public be said to have made a clear, informed decision? It can’t. Neither side had plans in the event of a “No” vote. In particular, the Leave campaigns’ lies and distortions were exposed or admitted within hours of the result, as was the rapid desire of many of its leaders to quit the field in the spirit of sauve qui peut. Having surprised themselves by winning, they clearly just didn’t know what to do next. Even seven months later there is still confusion at the heart of the Government.

5. The Referendum campaign was unfitting of a mature democracy.
Deceptions were perpetrated and admitted by both sides but above all by the Leave campaigns. The press coverage, particularly from Leave-supporting newspapers, was largely mendacious and deceitful. Michael Gove's dismissal of "experts" was more than a cynical ploy to grab votes; it was an implicit attack on the very institution in which he and you serve and whose sovereignty he claimed to want to extend. In short, the Referendum campaign was not a sign of a vibrant, mature democracy but an insult to it and a national embarrassment.

6. The Referendum was inappropriately used as a protest vote.
Stoked by the Leave campaigns and their press supporters, many voted Leave out of ignorance, anger, fear and a wish to hit politicians and economic and other interests by whom they felt betrayed or rejected. Their scapegoat – as so often – was foreigners. A referendum of this kind and on this question was no place for such a protest vote, however justified the anger. (To support this point, I shall conclude this email with a list of legitimate complaints for which the EU simply cannot be blamed. Rather, they are due our own poor governance: that is, the exercise of our own sovereignty untrammelled by EU involvement or interference.)

7. Rejecting the result of the Referendum is not “anti-democratic”.
Even disregarding the many democratic failings of the whole process, the Referendum result was explicitly not made binding so there is no constitutional impediment to rejecting it. Moreover, about 3 million people who had rarely or never been bothered to vote did so on 23rd June. Nearly all voted Leave. This helped swing the result. Leavers have no right to lecture the rest of us about democracy if so many of them couldn't even be bothered until now to cast a vote for which others fought and died.

I call on Parliamentarians to stand up, to be brave and now work together to halt this trek from progress before it is too late. I call on you to be proud to risk your personal careers and party's fortunes for the good of the nation, and not to run scared of your voters' wrath. I ask you not to let a government’s desire to appease those who shout the loudest threaten the future of this great country for the second time in a century.

Addendum
The Leave campaigns lost the argument even if they narrowly won the vote. We must now defend, restate and massively extend the case for remaining beyond the narrowly economic and focus on the cultural issues that are equally at stake.

To address the undoubted anger and disillusion of Leave voters we must make clear that most of the things about which they are incensed are NOT due to the European Union.

So I hope that we will all be brave enough to ask ourselves the following: Compared to other EU nations of similar wealth and size, does the UK in general have
• a better education system and higher levels of literacy?
• better health and social care systems?
• better standards of health, food and diet?
• higher economic productivity?
• a more equitable distribution of wealth?
• better urban environments and better quality housing?
• better transport systems and better quality roads?
• more independent shops and restaurants, and fewer corporate chain stores in our high streets?
• higher standards of public behaviour, and less alcohol-fuelled night-time aggression?
• and yes, better national football teams (I exempt, probably temporarily, that of Wales)?

Sadly, the answer to all these questions about vital indicators of our nation's health is "No". In respect of all of them, comparable European nations are ahead of us, often significantly so. Yet in the UK, the EU has control over none of them.

Things have slipped behind on our governments' - and our - watch. They are our doing.

I am a patriot yet I've never been afraid to admit that the UK has a huge amount to learn from our neighbours about how to live and how to live well, and it has never been more important than now. In short, for all the great things that we can and should offer Europe, the simple fact is that we DO need the EU more than they need us. We must not be complacent. We should be opening ourselves up not closing ourselves down.

Thank you very much for reading this, and I repeat my offer to support you if you agree with what you have read.

Yours,
Peter Roberts