Dear David,
Thank you so much for your email. It is interesting to hear your views on Europe, no matter how
vague and ill-conceived they seem to be.
I'm very glad to see, for example, that you are not
aligning yourself with the populist xenophobia expressed by UKIP - who, as you
rightly say, are in no position to deliver on their promise of parochialising a
Britain which, in an ideal world, might one day actually adopt a generous,
hospitable and enriching cosmopolitanism. Unfortunately, of course, in this kind
of open-minded Britain there won't be room for a Conservative Party which begins
its randomly circulated emails with lines such as 'The EU is heading in a
direction Britain never signed up to' (largely because said ideal Britain won't
be looking to blame Brussels for everything that it's cocked up itself - and
would know that ending a sentence with a preposition is deeply unpatriotic) -
but, hey, that's a small price to pay for actual real democracy, I would have
thought.
There do, though, seem to be a few minor factual
errors in your email which you may wish to address before you send it out to
everyone whose email address you've been able to snaffle from the internet by
exploiting the vagaries of the Data Protection Act.
'Benefit tourism', for example, is a phrase which
appears to have been invented by your own press office. Call me an
old-fashioned woolly liberal if you must, but I have actually spoken to many of
the people that you insist on referring to as 'foreigners' and it seems that
claiming benefits, lying on a trolley in the corridor of an underfunded NHS
hospital and having to live in poorly maintained social housing are about the
last things on their mind. In fact, amazingly (well, I expect it's amazing to
you), they appear to contribute to the economy and more than compensate for the
British 'benefit tourists' who are currently claiming millions in Germany and
elsewhere. If you want to secure the British pensioners' vote, by the way -
forget Bournemouth. Most of 'our' pensioners now appear to be living in holiday
resorts from the Costa del Sol to the Black Sea. Apparently, EU regulations mean
that they can do this and still claim their pensions. Given that you have
obviously thought long and hard about how Britain's departure from the EU would
affect its citizens, you are probably already aware of this.
Re: point 2 - "Securing more trade but not an 'ever closer union'": isn't that a
contradiction in terms? Isn't a 'closer union' good for trade? Or are you
thinking of adopting the policy of earlier British governments - i.e. securing
more trade through the simple measure of invasion? That would certainly be a
'closer union' - and, let's face it, it seems to be working for your great mate
Vladimir Putin.
I wouldn't worry too much about 'justice and home
affairs' either. To be honest, you seem to be doing a more than adequate job of
ensuring that anything to do with the law is swathed in almost completely
impenetrable bureaucracy and that Britain's own affairs are safe in the hands of
people who went to some kind of big, swanky public school in Berkshire and/or
made their own fortunes by selling 'financial packages' to the gullible in the
mid-1990s. What an inspired gesture, by the way, to replace that dreadful Miller
woman as Minister of Culture! Appointing a former banker is self-evidently the
way forward. I'm sure he'll know loads of stuff about the arts which will place
Britain at the forefront of the international stage (that's a thing where
theatre happens, by the way, in case you or he weren't sure).
As for 'getting a better deal for British
taxpayers', has it ever occurred to you that it might be easier to do this by
cutting your own salaries and expense accounts? Or, indeed, putting
irresponsible financiers in the dock and giving them the kind of
disproportionate sentences you currently reserve for people in hoodies who knick
stuff from shops or sell a bit of skunk to undercover journalists? I'm sure we
could work out a reasonable tarif - maybe ten years for every million embezzled
and tucked away in an off-shore account? Again, of course, this might have a
slightly damaging effect on the support for your party, but, as I said before -
hey, that's democracy.
Thank you, too, for giving me 'the final decision'
on Britain's membership of the EU. It's a shame, of course, that 'final
decision' sounds a little bit like 'final solution', but I'm sure that your PR
people will be across this going forward. It's a shame, too, of course, that, in
even asking the question, you'll be unleashing even more xenophobic nonsense
from the likes of UKIP and the Daily Mail. But, hey, needs must when you're a
party whose whole attitude to running the country has been to pander to the
darkest passions of an imaginary white van man who lives in an imaginary Essex.
Maybe, on the eve of your proposed referendum,
you should just give everyone a free case of beer (although obviously not Stella
Artois, Guinness and other 'foreign' stuff) and hope that, when pissed, even
sensible people decide that we're all going to hell in a handcart.
I hope these thoughts will be of use and that you
will not hesitate to contact me if you have any questions. Unfortunately, my
reply may be slightly delayed. Wouldn't you just know it - as a hard-working
family (that was your term, wasn't it?), we seem to be having more luck getting
work in other EU countries than we do here.
All best wishes,
Tom
PS Are you sure about using the word 'austerity' to
describe the state we're in? How about 'under-performancing'? It's not actually
a word, but then why should that matter? 'Gove' isn't a word, either, and you've
put him in charge of education!
No comments:
Post a Comment