A regular correspondent sent me this and I thought it was worth sharing:-
“My M.P. is OLIVER HEALD, representing the North & East Hertfordshire constituency.
In 2004 (when the Conservative Party was in opposition) his views and promises were exemplified by a speech in Parliament, in which he said
“…..Is it not time that the Government started to listen to, and act on, advice? They are ignoring the voters on the European Constitution; they ignored the Electoral Commission's advice on all-postal ballots; they ignored their own embassies' advice on immigration visas. Does the Leader of the House understand why people feel let down by Labour? Can we have a statement—a statement of apology?”.
His views on the EU appeared to coincide with my own, so I voted for him in 2005. He was elected.
Immediately after this, his views changed dramatically. I told him I was a supporter of the newly-formed ‘Better off out” campaign. His reply was so dismissive and pro-EU that I was astonished.
At the same time other members of the Tory Party (still in opposition) were giving out strangely different messages - Former London Mayoral candidate Steve Norris, was asked about the EU, and his reply is worth quoting at some length: I strongly support close a constructive dialogue with our European neighbours and I believe there are some issues………where co-operation among European nations is invaluable. But the evidence over many years is that the EU is a corrupted and corrupting organisation that denies democracy and works against the interests of member states in preference to the interests of its bureaucrats. I want to see the powers of the Commission reduced, not enhanced. I strongly support the proposition that it would be intolerable for the UK government to come to any decision on an EU Constitution without a referendum. He added: "If it were Conservative policy to leave the EU, I should have no problem with that".
I have long ceased to trust the Tory leaders, who have consistently lied about the EU since Edward Heath in 1975, and have continued to do so through Michael Howard (“we will change the EU.”) to the bleating William Hague - “in Europe but not run by Europe” – what a fool!
Mr. Heald said, in a letter to me in 2009, that my views on the EU were “ absolute nonsense”.
So in 2010 I did not vote for him, and have not been in contact since. I keep in touch with what is going on via Conservatives such as Roger Helmer, Daniel Hannan, Bill Cash, and Chris Heaton-Harris who fight a continuous battle against Conservative EUphiles like Ken Clarke (who looks to be aiming for a nice fat job as an EU Commissioner), and Dave, their disrespected Leader.
Strangely, many in the Labour Party have reverted to Tony Blair’s pre-1997 stance which was decidedly EU-sceptic.
Mr. Heald’s parliamentary voting record in the past year is interesting….
13 October 2010. Voted against an amendment calling for a reduction in Britain’s contribution to the (draft) EU 2101 Budget.
10 November 2010. Voted for European Economic Governance.
11 January 2011. Voted against Sovereignty of the UK Parliament in relation to EU law.
18 March 2011. Did not vote on UK Parliamentary Sovereignty Bill (second reading).
24 May 2011. Voted for a hostile amendment to a motion to halt EU bailouts.
I am now 77. When I was 18 I was proud to able to exercise my right to vote for the person who I thought would represent me
- and at least show sympathy for my views.
I have voted in every Parliamentary election since.
I don’t think I will bother any more.
What a shame…………………
I am still interested (but not active) in politics, and shall attend the People’s Pledge Congress on Saturday 22nd October.
Peter R., Baldock
My only comment would be to reply to Peter that he should not despair – The English Democrats are here!
P.S. Peter referred to a letter he had received five years ago about Oliver Heald’s letter. It is out of date on some facts but worth reading anyway. Here it is:-
Tuesday, 19 December 2006
Thank you for sending me a copy of Oliver Heald’s letter which he sent in response to your ‘Better off Out’ card. I would like to go through some points regarding Oliver’s letter. He refers to William Hague’s speech and the ‘benefits’ of a single market and later refers to ‘a globalised economy’. A lot of bunk is written and spoken about the Single Market. We were told we were joining a single market in the early 1970s. If it is a single market why does the EU need its own army? Why does it need Europol - the EU police force whose members are above the law? I could go on to demonstrate that primarily it is not a ‘single market’. It is an embryo superstate incorporating an internal trading bloc and a trade barrier to countries outside its membership. This restricts free world trade. Here are just two examples
1) After the Tsunami crisis the Thai Prime Minister, Thaksin Shinawatra, told the world that his country did not want financial aid. Above all Thailand wanted the European Union to lift the
punitive tariffs on shrimp exports which in recent years have inflicted more damage on its economy than the tsunami itself.
2) The European Union has imposed a 16.5 per cent anti-dumping tariff on leather shoes imported from China since October 7. This is to protect the Italian shoemaking industry. So much for a single market which is nothing more than a protection racket.
Globalised Economy is a catch phrase used to make us think that it is a recent phenomenon. Those countries that had empires in the past have been involved in world trade for generations. It is nothing new. We gave all members of the British Empire the opportunity to become self governing, starting with India in August 1947. We then established the Commonwealth which was a successful world trading enterprise until the Conservative Party abandoned it in favour of the EU in 1972. Those who understand history know more about global trading than the current spin doctors.
Oliver refers to ‘the ability to work and travel freely within the EU’s borders’. There is considerable doubt whether on balance this is a benefit. There are many illustrations including:
i) Having open borders has left the country wide open to criminals entering the country. The Chief Inspector of Constabulary raised her concerns in her most recent Annual Report. She explained that after living in this country for three years, citizens from EU states are entitled to join our police forces. She reported that when applying to the applicants’ home countries for references she was not convinced that the responses were satisfactory. In short she fears that foreign criminals will be joining our police forces due to lack of evidence of their criminality.
ii) A great strain has been placed on our education system. There are a good number of schools which have more than 30 different basic languages amongst their pupils. This is bound to affect the education of English speaking students detrimentally and create excessive financial demands on the schools’ budgets.
iii) Immigration is often quoted as a benefit because workers from poorer countries are prepared to do work which British people won’t do. This means that there are a large number of British people living on benefits who are able to work. This is bad for our economy and indicates that many of the immigrants are prepared to work at lower than the minimum wage. A further effect is that many immigrants send money home rather than spend it in this country which is also harmful to our economy.
iv) It is often said that immigrants are contributing to our economy, but the health of the economy is measured by dividing the gross domestic product by the population which gives GDP per capita. Current figures show that GDP per capita is falling.
v) There is also a much more serious aspect relating to our relationships throughout the world. We have now reached the situation where citizens of EU states can enter this country with impunity whilst citizens of our longstanding Commonwealth allies have to apply to enter. These were the people with whom we have been trading for centuries before the buzz phrase of ‘Globalised Economy’ was coined. What Britain needs is tighter controls of our borders. This will become even more apparent after the 1st January when Hungary and Bulgaria join the EU. There is no doubt that there will be another massive influx from there, particularly from the gypsy component.
Oliver talks about the EU needing a change of direction. This shows a grave lack of understanding of our position within the EU. The EU’s impending implementation of its judicial system should encourage our politicians to take a greater interest in the workings of the EU. Before we joined the EU the unelected Commissioners defined Acquis Communautaire. It is a phrase that is rarely interpreted, but the EU Commission described it when it had to come to a decision about the accession of the United Kingdom. The Commission’s definition reads: “the applicant States accept, without reserve, the treaties and their political objectives, the decisions of any nature occurred since the entry into force of the treaties and the options taken in the field of the development and the reinforcement of the communities’. In plain English it states that any country that is admitted to the EU has to accept the total body of EU law.
The Conservative Government acknowledged this when it enacted The European Communities Act 1972. (Traitor Heath was PM at the time)
Paragraph 2 of the European Communities Act 1972 reads:
(1) All such rights, powers, liabilities, obligations and restrictions from time to time created or arising by or under the (EU) Treaties, and all such remedies and procedures from time to time provided for by or under the (EU) Treaties …. are without further enactment to be given legal effect or used in the United Kingdom.’
In other words we are completely subject to EU law which takes precedence over British law. This was tested in the courts when Margaret Thatcher introduced a Merchant Shipping Act in order to regain control of our shipping waters. It failed because it breached EU law. In short when the EU issues a Directive we are treaty bound to obey it. Now that the Conservative Party talks about ‘being in Europe but not run by Europe’ it is attempting to renege on its initial undertaking. It is rather like joining a golf club and then saying that you have no intention of obeying the rules.
Even the present government admits that we suffer from too many regulations and has established a Regulation Task Force. The government is either ill informed or is practising another deception
All regulations and directives affect Britain. The Regulation Task Force has no ability to change them. It can only change the regulations which the Government adds to the overwhelming EU Regulations.
Oliver says that ‘political integration has gone far enough’ but the evidence shows that the majority of member states and a significant number of Conservative MPs and MEPs disagree with him and wish to create a federalist country. Oliver will be aware that the majority of Conservative MEPs are members of the European Peoples Party (EPP) the most federalist of the Parties in the EU parliament. When David Cameron was canvassing to become Leader of the Party he undertook to take his MEPs out of the EPP. He then not only reneged on that undertaking but he threatened to deselect those MEPs who said that they would leave the EPP anyway.
In October 2006 the European Parliament debated a report on the European Central Bank which included these words (paragraph 9, page 6): "Supports the introduction of the Euro by all the member states." The decision to whip Tory MEPs in favour of the report appears to have been
taken after pressure from the EPP. Five Tory MEPs resisted the whip and rejected the report: Martin Callanan, Daniel Hannan, Roger Helmer, Chris Heaton-Harris and Syed Kamall. The remaining 22 voted for the report signifying their approval of Britain abolishing the pound sterling.
At the recent Conservative Party Conference David Cameron told delegates that they were ‘to stop banging on about Europe’. The EU is the most important factor in British politics today apart from the possible exception of Iraq and Afghanistan. The evidence above shows that the Conservative Party supports further integration within the EU but this must not be revealed to the general public.
Oliver suggests that there are ‘certain benefits’ to our continued membership’. For years those opposed to Britain’s membership of the EU have asked successive governments for a cost benefit analysis. On each occasion the reply has been that there is no need because the benefits are obvious. If that is the case why not undertake the study to confirm that point of view? In fact earlier this year the Swiss government did carry out a cost benefit analysis and the result showed that the benefits of staying out outweighed the benefits of joining.
There are other factors which Oliver hasn’t raised in his letter including the reasons given for our membership of the EU which are totally unconvincing.
We are told that we are too small to survive by ourselves, yet we are the fourth largest economy in the world.
We are told that the EU has prevented war in Europe for the last fifty years. The only European war during that period was the Balkan War which was caused by the EU recognising the independence of Croatia when, in fact, it was a state within the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. This caused the war which led to the collapse of Yugoslavia.
As one delves into the machinations of the EU it becomes obvious that the purpose of the EU is to create a single European state under the influence of France and Germany. Presumably Oliver is not aware of the Elysée Treaty 1963 between the French and Germans.
A number of polls have been taken of Conservative Party Members. A recent one conducted by The Freedom Association shows that David Cameron leads a party 63 per cent of whose members either support or are sympathetic to its Better Off Out campaign. This doesn’t take into account those past loyal members who have deserted the Party for such organisations as UKIP. Throughout his leadership bid, Mr Cameron emphasised the need for consistency in politics. He was right to do so. In the current climate, voters are not disposed to give their politicians the benefit of the doubt. According to all the polls, the majority of electors want powers back from the EU, yet distrust the Tories on the European issue because they think - not without reason - that the Tories' Euro-scepticism is simply trotted out at election times. The EPP link justifies that belief. The Tories seem to be saying one thing in Britain, but doing another in Brussels. David Cameron's integrity, and Oliver’s, is now at stake. Leaving the EPP was the only unequivocal promise David Cameron made during his leadership campaign. Failing to deliver on the one thing he is able to do in opposition has made potential supporters doubt his ability to deliver if the Party was in government. The dogged Europhiles - Ken Clarke, Douglas Hurd, and Geoffrey Howe - need to understand this. So, too, do those Conservative MEPs who are reluctant to give up their well paid, well fed niches within the EPP. David Cameron stated that the Party needs to "change to win", but he and Oliver, must change by representing the views of the grass root members of the Party and attract back into the fold those electors who have deserted to Parties which more reflect their views.
The EU’s own ‘Eurobarometer’ issued its findings this week which shows that only 39 per cent of Britons think the country has benefited at all from being in the EU. It shows a majority of the electorate having little trust in the European Commission - the EU civil service - the European Parliament but most importantly our Members of Parliament. If only the Conservative Party could grasp this fact and change their attitude it could win the next election hands down.