Is EU ref­er­en­dum ques­tion clear?

Buckinghamshire Advertiser - - OPINION - JON LATHAM NHS blood and trans­plant’s as­sis­tant di­rec­tor for donor ser­vices and mar­ket­ing

AS ac­tions speak louder than words, if Prime Min­is­ter Cameron re­ally wants to rid the world of cor­rup­tion, he should start with him­self.

If PM Cameron and his pro-EUites think they have such a strong case, then why does he need to cheat by ask­ing a bi­ased yes/no ques­tion af­ter promis­ing an in/out ref­er­en­dum, and dis­grace­fully dis­re­gard­ing the con­ven­tional gov­ern­ment 28-day pur­dah prior to a ref­er­en­dum?

It is im­pos­si­ble to ask the EU ques­tion with a yes/no an­swer with­out bias, given the pre­dis­po­si­tion of most peo­ple an­swer­ing a yes/no ques­tion pos­i­tively.

Fur­ther, as the ques­tion can be asked both ways round, there is the po­ten­tial for misun­der­stand­ing by dis­ad­van­taged peo­ple, and not vot­ing in ac­cor­dance with their in­ten­tion.

The Elec­toral Com­mis­sion favoured ‘Should the UK be in the EU?’ – po­ten­tially mis­lead­ingly im­plies the UK is not al­ready in the EU.

There­fore, to com­ply with the pre-elec­tion prom­ise, and be as clear to all as pos­si­ble, the ques­tion should be ‘Should the UK re­main IN the EU, or opt OUT of the EU?’, with the bal­lot pa­per op­tions upon which to vote be­ing IN or OUT.

DAVID G MEA­COCK

Layters Close Chal­font St Peter

a po­lit­i­cal party is an es­sen­tial cri­te­rion.

If and when there are such peo­ple, I have a sup­ply of white rosettes beg­ging to be used!

SHIRLEY SCRIVENER For­mer In­de­pen­dent Mayor Bea­cons­field Town Coun­cil

them un­less they give us a large per­cent­age of their homes vir­tu­ally for noth­ing’.

Can you imag­ine if car man­u­fac­tur­ers had to give away ev­ery third car they built to some­one who could not af­ford to buy one?

Or if su­per­mar­kets had to give away a third of their food to peo­ple who were hun­gry – there would be out­rage in those in­dus­tries and rightly so.

Pri­vate house­builders are forced into be­ing the providers of so­cial hous­ing be­cause they need plan­ning per­mis­sions that are only is­sued with these re­stric­tions.

There is no profit in it for the house­builders and their share­hold­ers, so nat­u­rally they build the min­i­mum pos­si­ble.

The gov­ern­ment how­ever (and lo­cal coun­cils) own vast amounts of land across the coun­try suit­able for de­vel­op­ment and in­stead of build­ing af­ford­able homes them­selves, they sell land to the high­est bid­der, with­out tak­ing the so­cial re­spon­si­bil­ity them­selves.

The irony of all this is that house­builders gen­er­ally get the blame for not enough homes be­ing built.

There was noth­ing wrong with the orig­i­nal idea, so come on coun­cils start build­ing coun­cil houses again and stop selling them off cheap!

STEPHEN WICKS Chief ex­ec­u­tive In­land Homes

Amer­sham

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from UK

© PressReader. All rights reserved.