Tag Archive: Referendum

No way says José

The World at One today played host to the last CEO of the European Commission, one José Manuel Barroso.

In his view, Britain is no longer at the centre of European Union decision-making because David Cameron is pushing a “defensive agenda” in Brussels, maintaining that the UK’s influence within the EU had diminished since the days of Tony Blair’s premiership.

The interview can be heard here (starts 12:12) and among his comments, Barroso said:

While with Tony Blair, Britain was really playing a very important role in the European Union – they were at the centre of decisions – today, this is no longer the case, and I think this is a matter for reflection……….. The American president, if he wants to get European countries on board, I think the first call he makes is to the Chancellor of Germany, no longer to the British prime minister, and this is new……….. There are a number of matters where we see eye-to-eye with the British government, and unfortunately because of some exceptionalism that the current leadership in Britain wants to consolidate regarding the European Union, I think the opportunities for a more positive, proactive leadership have been, to some extent, spoiled.

He also had strong words about the free movement of people and stressed any decisions taken to restrict immigration and the level of benefits must not affect that pillar of free movement.

One suspects that these words from Barroso are but the forerunner of similar rhetoric from others in the European Union – and which will increase as the General Election gets nearer. Were David Cameron to obtain an overall majority (at present seemingly highly unlikely) then one can see such rhetoric reaching crescendo levels.

All the more reason therefore for those who form the anti-EU brigade to swallow their egos and start working together?


Devolution – a Pandora’s Box?

None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free.

Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

 With the second Scottish Independence debate occurring this evening it is perhaps opportune to consider some aspects of this subject which do not yet appear to have been discussed.

Devolution of power to Scotland and Wales was one of the central planks of New Labour’s election manifesto in 1997, under the leadership of Tony Blair. Cynics are of the opinion that either (a) it was but a ploy to ensure a majority of Labour MPs in Scotland and Wales; or (b), it was but the first sign of Blair wishing to be at the heart of Europe and demonstrating that by starting the process of regionalisation – you pays your money and………..

Once the process of devolution was begun it could be likened to the opening of a Pandora’s box in that that action, one that seemed so small or innocent, has turned out to have severely detrimental and far-reaching consequences.

All that the process of devolution has accomplished is to provide another opportunity for a group of politicians to sense an opening whereby they can carve out for themselves a career which will provide a bigger slice of cake than that which they currently enjoy, while at the same time fragmenting a united kingdom.

It could be said that those first implementing devolution paid little thought to what might follow – and if they did, they obviously cared not knowing that they would not be around to deal with the consequences. I seem to recall that the consequences of an act affect the probability of its occurring again; something that we see with the further concessions being promised to Scotland by todays political elite – and this lot will not be around either when the time comes to clear up their attempt at bribery.

Alex Salmond has made great play about ‘freedom for Scotland’ where the question of Scottish Independence is concerned, while conveniently hiding the fact that it is not freedom for Scotland, nor its people, that he seeks; but the freedom for him and his ilk to rule Scotland as they see fit – and lets face it, they had an example of what to do by looking at the political system in England.

Under representative democracy our political class (and it will be no different in Scotland) work on the basis that having been left to our devices we have not been able to regulate ourselves (in their opinion) and therefore it is necessary that we must be forced, we must have our earnings seized by the state, we must work under their directions (under penalty of fines or imprisonment); that we don’t deserve to be free.

The practice of our political elite throwing titbits to the people from the table of democracy is no different to those who throw titbits from the dinner table to their dog. Unfortunately, the people have yet to learn something that dogs already know; namely, that hunting as a pack they can soon get to everything that is on the dinner table!


What is the point in trying?

Readers may remember that I recently mentioned that I had instigated two personal ‘initiatives’ with a view to taking to task both Cameron and the supposed  eurosceptic organisations on ‘matters EU. . For the moment I wish just to deal with the latter of those two.

On Sunday last the following email was sent to Robert Oulds, Bruges Group; Edward Spalton, Campaign for an Indepependant Britain (CIB); Simon Richards, The Freedom Association; Matthew Elliott, Business for Britain; Marc Glendenning, Democracy Movement; Robin Tilbrook, English Democrats; and Rory Broomfield, Better Off Out

It is now apparent that should David Cameron win the forthcoming general election in 2015 with an outright majority a referendum on this country’s membership of the European Union will be held towards the end of 2017.  

In any event, it is also obvious that treaty change will be on the agenda during the life of the next parliament which will involve the transfer of more power to the European Union. Regardless of which political party forms the next government of this country, it will also necessitate a referendum under the terms of the European Union Act 2011.­  

As a private individual it appears to me that the anti-EU movement need to be speaking with one voice so that come the time of any referendum the ‘Out’ campaign should have agreed on a strategy which thus ensures that the campaign will be structured and well planned.  

Currently the anti-EU groups seem to be sending out mixed messages; ones which, in turn, then present a similar mixed message to the electorate. It is obvious that if the ‘wrong’ message is presented, it could well alienate those who would support the cessation of this country’s membership of the European Union. It is my opinion that for a referendum to be won by the ‘No side, it will be necessary for certain matters to be decided upon.  

First, it is essential that an exit plan be devised and agreed, one capable of reassuring the majority of voters – and business – that the UK’s economic interests are protected, together with access to the Single Market; and that we can thereby leave without any problem to business and without precipitating an economic crisis.  

Second, the ‘No’ campaign will have to unify behind that plan – at least, a sufficient number that would convince the Electoral Commission that such a group is the best candidate to run the official “out” campaign, and thereby dictate the tone and conduct of the fight.  

Third, it is necessary that alliances are built and a campaigning network created which, when submissions are made to run the “out” campaign, will give substance and credibility to any joint application. Only then would any submission stand a serious chance of securing a successful bid.

 If started now it will, I estimate, take the best part of two years to get to that point, as long as those involved work hard.  

In view of the foregoing I write to inquire whether you would be prepared to attend an exploratory meeting to discuss a common ground whereby the creation of a grouping of like minds, agreeing to work together, can be formed; and who would then be able to bring about that for which we all wish.  

Needless to say, at present there is no venue or date envisaged for such a meeting, although the earlier it can be held the better. Purely as an aside, perhaps it might be possible, if a majority of addressees interested in such a meeting as I suggest are in provisional agreement, one of them with offices in central London might feel able to act as host of such an initial, exploratory, meeting.  

I look forward to your response in due course.  

With kind regards,

David Phipps

At the time of writing replies are awaited on behalf of the CIB, Democracy Movement and English Democrats.

Robert Oulds, on behalf of the Bruges Group, responded that he would be happy to attend such a meeting.

The following response was received from Simon Richards, The Freedom Association:

Dear David,

 Thank you very much for your message.
The Freedom Association, and its Better Off Out campaign, have always co-operated closely with, and had friendly relations with other like-minded anti-EU groups. Once the elections to the European ‘Parliament’ are out of the way, we shall be actively seeking to build on those relationships, in readiness for a possible future EU referendum.

I think that this will be best done through a series of informal meetings involving the principal parties. I don’t think that a formal meeting will work, but please rest assured that we are committed to doing all that we can to try to ensure that the anti-EU case is put as effectively as possible.

All the best,


Likewise the response received from Rory Broomfield, Better Off Our (and it should be remembered that both TFA and BOO are but one think tank – in all but name) was:


Thank you for the email. I’m afraid I don’t feel that a formal meeting would be the most appropriate at this stage. It is in no way certain that there will be a 2017 referendum and, although it would be wrong not to keep up our activity in pushing the agenda, setting up formalised bodies in the way that is being imagined I think is premature.

Representatives of the groups that you mention (and have forwarded this email to) already meet on an informal basis and I see no need to change this at this point.


The email to Matthew Elliott had to be sent to his organisation’s generic email address, being marked for his personal attention, as I was not in possession of a personal address. Today I received the following response, the reply to which was a model of restraint (something for which I am not known).

Thank you for your email, before I forward this to Matthew, please can you give me some more information on your interest in this issue and your involvement in the EU debate to date?

 Best wishes
Oliver Lewis

To which my response was:

While a member of the Bruges Group I am a private individual, who runs a political blog (Witterings from Witney), concerned about what I see as the lack of clarity and cohesiveness within the anti-EU organisations, some of whom I consider tend towards a rather ‘tunneled’ vision based on their particular interests.

 It is hoped that the foregoing answers your questions; however I have to say that I find it somewhat puzzling that a perfectly innocuous email has been ‘intercepted’ prior to the individual to whom it is addressed receives it.
Kind regards,
David Phipps

At the time of writing no further correspondence is available for publication.

When one reads phrases such as: a series of informal meetings involving the principal parties;  and Representatives of the groups that you mention (and have forwarded this email to) already meet on an informal basis and I see no need to change this at this point – it really does drive home the fact that I cannot consider myself one of the elite, coupled with the inferred suggestion of just who the hell do I think I am – at which the point the question is returned, ‘in spades’. When one finds that an email has been ‘intercepted’ by an underling and questioned, then one really knows ones place.

It is a fact that the ‘In’ crowd, ie those believing in membership of the European Union, speak with one voice which repeats, ad nauseum, their mantra: the UK has to remain a full member of the EU to have influence; that the UK has to remain a full member of the EU in order to access the single market thus allowing the UK to trade with Europe. In that respect it is obvious that by speaking with one voice the ‘In’ crowd are presenting a unified argument – whatever their own individual reasons may be for so doing.

It does not take more than one brain cell to realise that those who oppose the views of the ‘In’ crowd should also be doing likewise – namely speaking with one voice. So why are those supposedly against the UK’s membership of the European Union not doing just that? Is this because their views are governed by personal ‘agendas’? Is it because their personal ego intervenes – that they are more interested in their careers than the cause for which they should be fighting? Is it because they have thoughts of possibly, at some time in the future, being parachuted into a nice comfortable parliamentary seat? Is it because their views are so grounded in antiquity that they are unable to see the ‘new-grown wood’ for the trees? Is it, in respect of Rory Broomfield, that having been selected as one of the six finalists in the IEA ‘Brexit’ competition he now has views way above his pay-grade? How does he know that which I imagine? Surely he is not following the example of our political class and telling me what I think? Or is it that, in common with politicians, Richards and Broomfield don’t wish to hear the views of a mere individual of the electorate?

In his response Broomfield needs to remember that Cameron has made a pledge that if he is elected with a parliamentary majority there will be a referendum in 2017. We all know that on 25 May 2009, Cameron said in a speech: “A progressive reform agenda demands that we redistribute power from the EU to Britain and from judges to the people. We will therefore hold a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty”. There were no qualifications or caveats to that pledge. It was unequivocal. Likewise with Cameron’s latest promise: there are no qualifications nor caveats – it is unequivocal. Possibly Broomfield knows something that we don’t?

The question about the future of the United Kingdom is not some game being played purely for the delectation of a small clique whose self-importance and inflated egos seem to be their entire raison-d’être  – the danger of losing any forthcoming referendum will result in the anti-EU movement being set back for at least a generation or more. Those of us who care passionately about our country and democracy cannot – and must not – allow that small clique to vie for the position as überführer  of the ‘No’ campaign. Coupled with that it must also be realised three of the main parties will fall into line and, for varying reasons, campaign to remain a member of the European Union, ie to retain the status quo; and the media, being part of the establishment, will back them. Neither can we allow the one party against EU membership to dominate the debate, as they are currently attempting to do. It must be recalled that this party, who hammers home the message: ‘Referendum Now’, has no published strategy to exit the European Union and does not even appear to have considered it necessary to even have one.

There is a comprehensive and well-structured exit strategy available – and until an alternative, better suggestion appears (if that is possible) then I can but suggest it would be in the interest of all anti-EU organisations and individuals to get behind it.

For the aforementioned small clique to ignore this strategy – and appear not even prepared to consider it – can only mean that they also have small minds.



Pat McFadden MP writes in Progressonline about immigration per se, his article carrying the heading: What kind of country do we want to be?

One has to say that, in the main, it is a reasonable article, yet one that misses the most basic question which, being it is written by a politician, is not surprising.

In posing the question he fails to stipulate to which ‘we’ he refers – the people, or his fellow politicians. Setting to one side the question of whether immigrants are an economic asset or not; setting to one side our ability to adapt to change; and setting to one side the ethnicity of immigrants, there can be no doubt that the fabric of our society has been changed beyond recognition.

Where ever one looks, we have been subjected to not only societal change but change through the imposition of laws by which we are told we have to live; we have had imposed on us a form of speech alien to us; we have had imposed on us beliefs alien to us – and not once were we asked whether we agreed to this.

We can debate, probably with no result, the question to whom a country belongs – that of its people, or to a select small percentage of individuals who profess to represent us and thus govern us. Leaving aside the fact that I am a believer in the idea this country belongs to the people, if we accept, purely for the sake of argument that our fate lies in the hands of those supposed to represent us, then the question remains: should we not still have been asked our views on any particular policy that would change the fabric of our society and/or country?

As a believer in the principles of direct democracy and that people should have a voice in how their country interacts with the outside world, I also believe that people should be able to decide what local services they want, if they are prepared to pay for them. In this regard, an interesting situation has arisen in Brighton & Hove. The ‘governing minority’ party (Greens) are seeking support for a referendum as they wish to increase their Council Tax by more than the 2% level set by central government, stating that the extra revenue raised would be spent to fund adult social care services, including care for the elderly, and grants to third-sector organisations. It will be interesting to see if the electorate of Brighton & Hove are given the opportunity of agreeing to the first but disagreeing with the second where the question of an increase in their council tax is concerned – but I digress.

Is this decision by Brighton & Hove the beginning of  ‘progress’, one whereby people can decide for themselves the society in which they wish to live and how they wish their taxes to be spent? It does of course then raise the question that if they are being asked how one portion of their council tax (albeit an increased, supposedly ring-fenced portion) should be spent, then why cannot they also decide how the contribution they make to national taxation should be spent and on what?

If we ‘progress’ those ideas, the situation may well arise whereby people start wanting a voice in whether our country should go to war, where and when our armed forces may be used in ‘peace-keeping’ roles. Is the ‘Pandoras Box of Democracy’ being unlocked which could result in the introduction of the 6 Demands?

Needless to say, I won’t hold my breath.



And the difference, Boris, is?

The main post for today will appear late afternoon as it concerns what is, in my opinion, the incorrectly termed ‘Draft Treaty’ of a new European Union.

In the meantime I cannot let pass without comment the latest article by Boris Johnson in this morning’s Telegraph. Condemning the Labour idea (House of Lords debate of Friday) that only Parliament should be the judge of what does -and what does not – happen in the UK; and that a referendum is essential to give the British people their say – he writes:

One by one their Labour lordships reminded each other of the wise words of Clement Attlee, that referendums were the devices of despots and dictators – and why? Because there was always the risk, don’t you know, that the poor benighted public would say or do the wrong thing.

Trust the people? Dear me, no, said the representatives of the so-called People’s Party. You couldn’t even trust the people to understand the question, let alone answer it, they said. These are difficult matters, they said, which are capable of being misrepresented by the Right-wing media. It is only we – the privileged oligarchic caste of experts – who are capable of adjudicating on issues like Europe, they said.


Is there some difference in the cognitive faculties of the British people? Is Labour saying we are incapable of getting to the heart of the matter, and of coming up with an answer that is in the long-term interests of this country? If this is the position – and I defy Ed Miliband to say it isn’t – then it is not only patronising and condescending to the electorate. It is boneheadedly stupid.

The question Boris Johnson has to answer is that if it is essential for the British people to have their say on our present and future membership of the European Union because of the effect on the sovereignty and independence of the UK; then should not the British people have that same right where their own government is concerned? Just where is the difference between the British people not being afforded a say on EU membership and their not being afforded a say on the level of Council Tax they are forced to pay? One could be forgiven for agreeing with the Labour peers as why should our political class break the habit of a lifetime? Why single out this one matter, when Parliament passes law every day, during the process of which the British people have no means of voicing their acceptance or dissent?

Therefore just where is the difference between how the European Union imposes law and the way our national Parliament imposes law? As has been said many times, I fail to see the point of the people reclaiming their sovereignty and independence only to hand it to what amounts to another set of dictators, albeit home grown ones. If anything is boneheadedly stupid, it is this last point.

Johnson concludes his article by stating that where this country’s membership of the EU is concerned we will get no change from Miliband or Clegg, but that we will with Cameron. Oh dear! Boris has obviously not read Fundamental Law (of which, as promised, more later) and has yet to realise that Cameron’s intent has been blown out of the water – literally. Where UK membership of the EU is concerned, the aforementioned document makes a basic point – what may be termed a fundamental point of EU law – that Cameron can’t change/instigate squat-diddly. For Cameron and Open Europe to maintain that he can is also boneheadedly stupid.

That Johnson can suggest Open Europe has the right idea and the right way forward only confirms that he does not understand the actualité of matters EU. While we continue to have such purile commentary from our political class, we remain in the situation of the blind being lead the blind.


Fact and Fiction

With David Cameron’s recent announcement that he is to tighten the rules affecting EU migrants, in effect what he is doing is but repeating fact and thus creating a fiction that he is ‘doing something’.

As Autonomous Mind writes, this is the ‘norm’; while Richard North questions have we not been here before? Richard North is extremely kind, in my opinion, when he refers to Cameron indulging in ‘gesture politics’ as I would go further and accuse him of lying to the electorate and thus misleading them.

Only two days ago the European Commission published Memo/13/1041 entitled: European Commission upholds free movement of people and further back, in February this year, there was this information on blogs.eu.

To add insult to injury the electorate also has to suffer the media blithely repeating that which Cameron has said with no attempt to refute his misinformation – a further example of which is here.

To add further insult to injury there is nothing really Cameron do, being constrained as he is by the supremacy of European Union law – and where we the people are concerned, there is nothing we can do either; unlike some.

On 9th February 2014 the electorate of Switzerand have the opportunity to vote on the SwissPeoplesParty (SVP) initiative to set annual quotas on permits granted to foreigners in Switzerland. This has understandably sent waves of shock/horror among the Swiss government with ministers lining up to plead that voters ignore this initiative on the grounds that it would would jeopardize long-established bilateral relations with the European Union and test Swiss treaty obligations with the EU.

Were this initiative to succeed it would indeed create massive problems for the Swiss government, similar to those that the decision by the people banning further minarets created.

It is well known that the majority of the political class in Switzerland would have their country in the European Union; and there is indeed an application for membership filed but which is ‘held in abeyance’ purely due to the Swiss people declining to allow their sovereignty to be taken from them.

If only the British people had the control over their sovereignty that do the Swiss people.

So, who and how much?

Helen, Your Freedom and Ours, picks up on a question posed by Lord Stoddart of Swindon in respect of the proposed referendum on this country’s membership of the European Union.

As with most parliamentary responses, that of Lord Wallace was as about as illuminating as lighting a match while standing in the middle of Wembley stadium in the dead of night. He refers to Section 119 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 which, for the average member of the electorate, helps not.

Turning to the Electoral Commission and the section on referendums, from the “referendums factsheet” we learn that additional legislation must be made to enable a referendum to take place. Presumably as the question in both the Scottish referendum and the proposed membership of the EU referendum are about the matter of independence, the referendum proposed for 2017 will follow the broad outlines of that for the Scottish referendum – at which time will be set limits on campaign spending and donations.

In which case, if run under the rules of PPERA, Lord Stoddart’s question was not answered and, in view of Helen’s comment at the end of her article, it is obvious said referendum will be anything but fair.

Just saying………..


A “Major” misunderstanding

Today Sir John Major regaled an audience at Chatham House with his views on the proposed EU referendum, one that he believes will “cleanse politics”. His speech was “live-streamed” and although this does not appear to be available on the Chatham House website, a recording of his speech and the following Q&A session is available to listen to, together with a text version of the former.

Major talks about repatriation of powers, opt outs, reform of existing policies, and safeguards against unwelcome developments and in rebuttal that repatriation of powers is even possible, one word will suffice: Acquis. He states that work should begin now preparing our case yet fails to mention that preparatory work should also begin on the need to negotiate  trade agreements should the referendum result in a ‘No’ vote; something he acknowledges can take years to resolve.

The only bright element in his talk is that he acknowledges an exit can only be accomplished through invoking Article 50 because, as he states, we are obligated by Treaty to negotiate our exit. Having said that, it is indicative that in his speech is the belief renegotiation will succeed and that the British people will then accept what is on offer.

A fellow blogger suggested that as people such as Major have nothing of value to say, it is a waste of time listening to them – and in this case, he may well be right. After all, if one is to have a misunderstanding on any subject then it may as well be a major one.

Cutting to the chase

The debate about this country’s membership of the European Union does not, I suggest, purely rest on trade, access to the single market, improving the EU’s competitiveness, maintaining an area of peace, healing the wounds of history, or any of the other faux-reasons put forward by David Cameron in his recent speech.

What the debate in regard to this country’s membership of the European Union is basically about is that of sovereignty: the ability of any nation to decide its own future direction of travel within the world environment, with whom it should enter into treaties and why, how the funds that the people of this country contribute to the country’s running costs is spent – and on what and where it is spent, to name but a few aspects.

More importantly, underneath the arguments that both Eurohiles and Eurosceptics put forward is what can be described as a more basic problem – namely what constitutes a democracy? Regular readers will, hopefully, forgive me for repetition – but said repetition is vital. The word “democracy” is derived from two Greek words: “demos” – people; and “kratos” – power, which when combined provides the phrase “people power”.Now where, in either the European Union or the UK is there “people power”?

By our membership of the European Union we are subject to legislation decided and implemented by those we have not elected and over whom we have no democratic control. In the UK, under representative democracy, we are subjected to legislation decided by those we may have elected but over whom – during their 5-year tenure – we have no democratic control. There is no control either over legislation or over how – or where – the funds, forcibly extracted from our pockets, is spent.

Does not accountability – and more importantly, control  over those the people elect – for the legislation that is passed; and the accountability and control of the funds extracted from those who elected them, not form the basis on which any democracy is founded? Does not every other aspect of what should constitute a democracy not flow from those two basic precepts?

Let us take two examples of accountability and control – one national and one local. Where politicians decide that a percentage of GDP should be offered to “developing nations” to further their progress and democracy – should not the people have the deciding voice over (a) whether such funds should be spent; (b) if they are to be spent, to which nation; (c) how they are to be spent; and (d) whether the needs of those nations is greater than the needs of the indigenous population of their own country? On a local level; should not parents have the right to decide (a) what classification of school they want for their children’s education; (b) what curricula should be taught; (c) who should teach it and how that should be done?

Eurosceptics argue, time and time again, that there is no “democracy” where the European Union is concerned, yet forget to mention that where the UK is concerned likewise there is no “democracy” – not in the strict meaning of the word, “democracy”.

When considering these Demands, I defy anyone to show me where even one of these is “met” by either our membership of the European Union or our present system of representative democracy. Therein lies the reason why this is so important – namely that The Harrogate Agenda must become a member, if not a leading member, of the ‘No’ campaign in the “promised” referendum.

When – and if – the referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union does finally “arrive”, the people of the UK are going to have to decide what it is they do want. In order to make that decision they must be given the knowledge on which to make it, knowledge based on facts – not “spin, nor “lies”.

It is those on whom the final decision will rest to whom the courtesy is owed of truth – not just about the European Union and the ramifications of membership – but of what democracy should mean and, for their benefit, provide.





Media reaction

Much has appeared in the press about David Cameron’s speech yesterday and prior to starting on that, two cartoons (Ack: Presseurop) as cartoonists invariably hit the proverbial nail on the head.



Politics Home have a feature they call “Today’s Top Ten Must Reads“, which unsurprisingly have only one item that is not about Cameron, his speech and the European Union. The authors of these 9 articles include the usual suspects – Peter Oborne, Timothy Garton-Ash, Mandelson, etc etc. – they can be accessed from the preceding link.

Another of their features is “Today’s Five at Five” (same link) and of those 5 articles, 3 are writing on the same subject as this morning’s 9. Cameron must surely  have hoped that his speech would “park” matters EU to one side and methinks, in this regard, there is little hope of that.

Adding to the articles above, Presseurop has a round-up of some of the views expressed in newspapers on the continent which, it writes, provokes reactions ranging from outrage to – more frequently – understanding. Some of the extracts quoted contain what may be termed “enlightening” statements.

In this post Richard North, EUReferendum, makes some very, very important points where conduct of the forthcoming – if one can use that word bearing in mind the coming forth is 4/5 years away – referendum is concerned. As he writes, this will not be a game but a battle for the future of our country as an independent nation; and name-calling can only denigrate the efforts of those who will be fighting Europhile politicians, their sycophants and the media – not forgetting the European Union.

Besides the renegotiation meme, another that seems to be gaining traction within the media is that should the UK cease its status as a full member of the EU, then trade is no longer possible – coupled with the idea that access to the Single Market is only possible by means of being a full member. To combat these “ploys” – and no doubt similar to come – we do indeed need to get down to work.

Hosted By PDPS Internet Hosting

© Witterings from Witney 2012