Comments on "Superb letter from outraged East Devon resident to Sir Hugo Swire on Brexit"
1. At 02:30 pm on 28th Jan Lisa Simpson wrote:
Very good. I am not for one moment suggesting that the author should not be anonymous but am simply curious why they feel it is necessary. Is it fear of retaliation? How many others are afraid to speak out? We live in a completely divided country and we have our PM and her intransigence and “red lines” to thank for much of that.
2. At 03:11 pm on 28th Jan Annabel Shaw wrote:
You are quite right Claire about this being one of the best and most eloquently written letters on the chaos that Brexit has become. I hope very much that Hugo Swire will pay it the respect it deserves.
3. At 04:58 pm on 28th Jan Tom wrote:
I am the author of the letter, and I requested anonymity a) because of my family, and b) because of my business. Our country is so divided now that I no longer would put it past people to seek retribution, especially if A50 is delayed or a Peoples Vote is called; neither myself nor my family need that.
But above all, this letter could have come from anybody. We should all be writing to our MPs asking for some sort of rational explanation as to not only how we’ve found ourselves here, but also how we can get ourselves back out again with minimal harm. Much of the country is drunk on the ideology of Brexit - the re-establishment of the Empire days - our MPs must be the ones taking the bottle away from the alcoholics. Having worked in local government for some years, I’ve had my fair share of people saying that they pay my wages; well, in this case, we do pay the MPs wages, and they’re on short-term contracts, so they need to deliver (notwithstanding David Davies of course, for whom his MP salary is a small drop in the ocean compared to his other jobs - see the £60,000/p.a. for 20 hours work for JCB).
Please feel free to copy and paste some/all of my letter and send it on to Sir Hugo demanding your own explanations.
I thank you all for your kind words of appreciation.
4. At 05:05 pm on 28th Jan Alan Jones wrote:
Very well said. The reasons for Remaining are stronger day by day.
5. At 06:10 pm on 28th Jan Annabel shaw wrote:
Tom - thank you. You manage to say so well what so many of us feel. Thank you for letting us use your letter to send on to our MP’s to express our protest.
Claire and Tom - I have an issue with using the title ‘Sir’ for Hugo Swire. Here’s why:
My father in law was awarded that title for his lifetimes work for the community. He was born into poverty in 1918 the son of a steel worker and spent his life working for a decent education for all. He was a founding member of the Open University and rose to become head of the Arts Council where he continued the fight for an arts education for all - and not just the privileged few. I am hugely proud of him and the work he did.
Hugo Swire did not earn his title - rather it was given to him for being a very junior minister and loyal supporter of David Cameron. I will not call him Sir..
6. At 07:24 pm on 28th Jan Sophie Gabriella Angevi wrote:
I whole heartedly agree with this letter and all of its content. I am equally horror stricken. Thank you to the author for the clear interpretation and for speaking out.
7. At 09:26 pm on 28th Jan Pam Squire wrote:
A heartfelt and erudite letter, I agree and applaud the content. Unfortunately it is unlikely it will be read., except the first three lines by some minion monitoring the e.mail. Never e mail . If you want to give one of them a bad day. Snail mail only, the envelope to be marked ,Private and Confidential. That messes up the minions. Secondly, Swire is not only selfserving, but apart from self interest fundamentally thick. Anything over three paragraphs is going to be of no interest. Possibly three lines might be a stretch. The only way to grab the attention of these people is not through rational arguments but fear, can we get rid of the useless little parasite, there are many intelligent people follow this site, is it time we started to get our heads together, just a thought.
8. At 04:44 pm on 02th Feb Joan Kelly wrote:
Another Remoaner who won’t accept democracy. The Country voted Leave and tha’s what it will be despite all the scaremongering.
9. At 09:32 am on 06th Feb Chris wrote:
The democratic vote was to leave. Had people accepted that when it was voted for and started immediately negotiating a trade deal instead of messing about on a ‘divorce’ deal for two years we would not be having the arguments we are today and the country would have known what to expect. We need to stop moaning and get on with it.
10. At 08:16 pm on 07th Feb Tom wrote:
Chris, you (not unreasonably) say “they” should just get on with it, but nobody has any idea what “it” is. Is it a soft Corbyn Brexit? Is it a May deal Brexit? Is it a hard, WTO Brexit? Not a single one of these massively different options has the degree of support that our present status, otherwise known as Remain, has.
And as for how they should have kicked off with negotiating a trade deal? You know that this was simply not an option until after we left.
It’s time for us as a country to take a long hard look at the charlatans and zealots who sold Brexit in 2016 and ask what their motivations may have been. In the main, it was for personal or corporate gain (see Jacob Rees-Mogg and David Davies for starters), and not for the good of us “ordinary folk”.
I would like to see Remain ++, an option where we require EU immigrants to secure employment (and thus contribute to the Exchquer) within a fixed period, where we can use state aid appropriately to aid our railways, etc (just as Germany and France do), and where we can have blue passports if we wish (the EU have never forced the present colour on us, even though I like it). We’d continue to sit at the top table, making and shaping the future EU, we’d still get our rebate, and we’d retain our veto for joining the Euro or the imaginary EU army.
We’ve never been better off than we are now, and sadly, from the 30th March, we’re about to learn that in the hardest possible way. It’s not a risk I’m prepared to allow my MP to take on behalf of me or my young family.