Pre-elec­tion jit­ters from Cameron?

Buckinghamshire Advertiser - - OPINION -

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

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.