The following has been forwarded to our Prime Minister by first class post, recorded delivery.
Prime Minister & First Lord of the Treasury,
10 Downing Street,
Dear Mr. Cameron,
A couple of months ago I emailed you, via your Constituency Secretary, explaining that I had moved from your constituency to that of Easington (Grahame Morris – Labour); but that as I considered having become Prime Minister of our nation you are answerable to any member of the electorate, I hoped for a response. Your Constituency Secretary, in her reply, wished me well in my move and advised that as she could only deal with your constituents she had passed my email to ‘Number 10’ for a reply. Needlessly – and sadly – to say, I am unable to trace receipt of any such reply.
In the aforementioned email I took you to task – complaining that you had misled the House of Commons and, more importantly, the people you were elected to serve; ie, you had lied – with regard to statements you had made in relation to this nation’s membership of the European Union.
You have consistently ‘rubbished’ the ‘Norway Option’; witness, courtesy of the Guardian[i], you state: …….Norway actually pays as much per head as we do…..they have no seat at the table, no ability to negotiate….. From the Norwegian government’s own figures[ii], net payments are about £340m (€470m) per annum, or about £68 (€94) per head. On the other hand, in 2014, the UK governments own figures[iii] show that our net per capita payment was £153 per annum – more than twice the Norwegian payments. You then continued with the slogan ‘while they pay, they have no say’, which completely disregards the level of ‘consultation’ that Norway has with her seat on over 200 EU committees, where the formation of U ‘law’ is concerned, coupled with the influence that she exercises, in her own right, on numerous UN bodies.
Consequently, Mr. Cameron, you are telling a clear lie in the apparent belief this is an acceptable level of behaviour for a Prime Minister of our nation; and, unfortunately, you do not stop there.
Compounding that despicable level of behaviour, you recently – only a few days ago – lied once again to the House of Commons during your statement regarding your renegotiation on our nation’s terms of membership. Recorded in Hansard[iv] is your statement: Finally, let me be absolutely clear about the legal status of these changes that are now on offer. People said we would never get something that was legally binding—but this plan, if agreed, will be exactly that. These changes will be binding in international law, and will be deposited at the UN. They cannot be changed without the unanimous agreement of every EU country—and that includes Britain. So when I said I wanted change that is legally binding and irreversible, that is what I have got. And, in key areas, treaty change is envisaged in these documents.
Since when have heads of government, acting as an intergovernmental body outside the framework of the treaties, been able to impose obligations on the European Union – which is what you appear would have us believe will happen as a result of the forthcoming European Council – or as our media would have it: a summit? Since when have you been able to foretell the result of treaty change, which you state will be necessary? Any treaty change will be subject to referenda in some EU Member States, so since when have you been able to foretell the results of any referendum (other than the upcoming one in the UK on our membership of the EU, where you seem to be going out of your way to rig the result)? Logic dictates the results of any decisions agreed at the forthcoming European Council are not – and cannot be – binding!
Only today you were quoted[v] by the BBC, on the subject of the Touquet Treaty saying: ……..If we can get this deal in Europe, if we can get this renegotiation fixed and we can stay in a reformed Europe, you know what you get. You know the borders stay in Calais. If, as you admitted, the Touquet Treaty is a bi-lateral treaty, then it has nothing to do with EU membership, despite the implication you make; in which case your statement is again a lie. In any event, if the Touquet Treaty is a bi-lateral treaty which can be abrogated by either side it follows the borders in Calais cannot stay forever – which is implied in your choice of words.
This penchant you have, Mr. Cameron, for being economical with the actualité or, as I believe logic dictates, lying, must cease if you are to retain your integrity and position as Prime Minister of our nation; and by so doing, allowing the electorate the ability to make their decision on an unbiased basis, which presently, due to statements by you and others, they are unable so to do.
I look forward to your response.
As an afterthought I have forwarded my MP a copy of this letter with the request he raise the contents with Cameron, preferably in the House of Commons. Let us see how my MP regards his duty to represent the concerns of one of his constituents – or whether his need to ‘toe the party line’ ‘Donalds’ representation of a constutient……