Pre-election jitters from Cameron?
FAR from the European Union being irrelevant to key local issues, all of them sprout from Brussels!
In his recent EU speech, David Cameron said if he is re-elected in May, he ‘will negotiate to reform the European Union, and Britain’s relationship with it. This issue of free movement will be a key part…’
Having issued a separate ‘contract’ reinforcing his manifesto promise ‘to reduce immigration to tens of thousands’ during the 2010 general election campaign, Mr Cameron has called for amendments to the founding EU principle of freedom of movement of people within its outer boundaries for the past four and a half years. But heads of state and those in key EU positions have consistently declared it to be non-negotiable.
Why only now has he threatened to force the issue by lack of co-operation? General election collywobbles?
Locally, unwanted additional housing, in breach of the contract’s fourth pledge to ‘give local communities the power to take charge of the local planning system’ is the consequence of continued uncontrolled immigration 260,000 net for the past year – 16,000 worse than Labour. Ironically, voting for the Conservative Party with its leaning tree logo has been a vote for more of the falling and felled trees it now symbolises, already caused by further house building and to be continued with HS2.
By attempting to con the electorate again, PM Cameron shows the same disgraceful contempt for we voters as Labour’s Emily Thornberry MP, and Conservatives Andrew ‘pleb’ Mitchell MP and David ‘who do you think you are?’ Mellor.
David Cameron has failed to control immigration and save us from Labour’s excessive housing numbers. So let’s hold him to his side of his ‘contract’ which read: ‘If we don’t deliver our side of the bargain, vote us out in five years’ time.’
COUNCILLOR DAVID G MEACOCK (UKIP) Chiltern District Council
Layters Close Chalfont St Peter
whether the vote was preceded by an informed debate in which both the pro and anti-vivisection cases were presented. AMRC’s heavy-handed approach fails to take account of growing doubts about the value of animal-based research to human medicine, and prevents charities from formulating their own policies on a highly controversial issue.
Charities that do not support vivisection will be prevented from joining AMRC, and current members will be barred from changing their opinion as the evidence against animal experimentation continues to grow.
To find out more about the funding of vivisection by some medical research charities and for a list of those that fund only modern and productive animal-free biomedical research, please visit www.victimsofcharity.org.
ISOBEL HUTCHINSON Campaigner, Animal Aid