Dear Tim

The British people also voted against brexit or didn't you get that memo? Why are only those voting for the insanity that is brexit British and people? You seem utterly unaware of the exclusionary implications of the language that you are using. 48% of people voting in the EU referendum voted against leaving, who represents us?

How is Labour 'pushing the government' on brexit if it has already stated that it will not block the implementation of Article 50? How can Labour call itself 'the opposition' if its policy position on brexit is the same as that of the government?

Fact is, the government is laughing at you. We are half way through January already and where is their plan? Nowhere. Far from being smart, you are being used as their stooges. You won't get a chance to scrutinise it, much less hold the government to account. This will be a right-wing brexit and you will be the useful idiots. 

And on top of this, if there is a right way to do brexit, the government is doing it wrong. Completely wrong. If it cannot be trusted with the NHS, and it can't, then it cannot be trusted with Brexit. May I suggest you read Brexit: What the hell happens next? by Ian Dunt.

Brexit like the EU referendum is being rushed. There was far more consultation on a third runway at Heathrow than there has been on brexit and you must ask yourselves the reason for this. It is being rushed because the Tories know that if it was properly managed and reviewed it would not be implemented and the reason for this is that it will not provide any specific benefit to the country. On the other hand it will be a costly administrative nightmare that will destroy good jobs and damage our relationship with our closest neighbours for decades to come.

On top of everything else, I and most of my compatriots will lose our EU citizenship rights. These are the specific, tangible and enforceable rights to live, work, run a business and retire to another 27 countries on the same footing as if we were citizens of that country. I would happily retain those rights over and above any 'benefit' that brexit might provide me.

So if you really want to hear my ideas on how Labour should tackle the challenges facing our country, it is simply this: Oppose brexit.

Kind regards,

Clariana

Stuart Agnew MEP – East of England UK Independence Party 25 Regent Street Great Yarmouth Norfolk NR30 1RL Tel: 01493-856744 e-mail: ukipeast@intamail.com www.stuartagnewmep.co.uk

  

Dear Mr Agnew

Thank you for taking the trouble of getting back to me. You are the only MEP who to-date has replied to me and you deserve some respect for that, I am extremely grateful.

However, there are some points you raise in your letter that I would like to address.

Firstly, there is the issue of citizenship, or rather citizenship rights. You describe this as being ‘imposed’, surely this is an incorrect interpretation and citizenship cannot be imposed…

The 'citizenship of the EU' was not imposed upon the citizens of the UK, nor the collective citizens of the EU, it was an international treaty agreement entered into by the membership on a multilateral basis. 'EU citizenship' does not confer any rights in its own right, they are reciprocally applied rights by all 28 member states. The EU is not a sovereign state and is therefore unable to confer citizenship upon any persons, regardless of who they are.

It is an offer, you either take it up or you don’t, you exercise it or you don’t but it is not imposed, in the strict English meaning of that word.

The EU has never demanded that I be loyal, or obey its treaties. I have never had to swear allegiance to the EU, its institutions or show my loyalty to it in any other way. Whether I chose to exercise my rights as an EU citizen, by living in another country, voting in European Parliament elections, or writing to my MEPs is entirely up to me.

Something similar happens with EU law, EU law does not take precedence over domestic law, it is given precedence by virtue of international treaty agreement, in the same way that the UK has around 13,000 other treaty agreements with sovereign states. EU law only has competence over community law, that is to say, it can only rule in areas in which the UK has entered into a multilateral treaty with the other 27 member states of the EU; it might be noted that this is exactly the same competence which the ICJ would have were it not for the existence of the ECJ. The ECJ cannot, and does not rule on issues that only effect a single state, it would not have jurisdiction to do so.

As a former lawyer, I would be extremely grateful if you could aside provide me with detailed citations of the unconstitutionality you allege regarding EU law because I would be very interested to review them.

Then there is a matter of the European arrest warrant you state “The EAW was supposed to be used to tackle terrorism and organised crime but has ended up being used for such things as trivial motoring offenses…”

However, a little research tells me, EAWs can only be issued for offences carrying a maximum penalty of at least a year in prison, or when the individual has already been sentenced to at least four months in prison. 

I would be very interested if you could provide me the specific details of a case in which an EAW has been issued involving a traffic offence, a case name and date would be very welcome.

I am sure you are also aware that there are specific cases in which a country can refuse to honour an EAW. This include the double jeopardy principle - a suspect will not be returned to the country that issued the EAW if he or she has already been tried for the same offence abroad. A refusal can be justified if an EU state's amnesty covers the offence in question. A refusal can also be justified under a statute of limitations - that is, if a time limit has passed for prosecution. And a state can reject an EAW if under its laws the suspect is a minor and below the age of criminal responsibility.

It is also clear that the UK has used the EAW for its own benefit many times. One instance in particular sticks in my mind, Hussain Osman, who in 2005 was charged over the failed 21 July London bomb attacks after being extradited from Italy. Mr Osman was accused of attempting to place a bomb in Shepherds Bush underground station. At the time, I was working in Shepherds Bush and using that station every day. Mr Osman was arrested in Rome a week after the attempted bombings, and flown back to the UK on Thursday 22 September.

Ironically, Mr Osman’s Italian lawyer attempted to block the extradition on the grounds that he would not receive a fair trial in the UK.

I think therefore that the EAW far from being a you say “unsubstantiated accusations on a piece of paper” is an extremely good example of the give and take that must exist between independent nation states. This is especially so in these times when terrorism is rampant and international and I am sorry that you feel obliged to disparage and misrepresent it simply because it was conceived by the EU. I also do not think it requires ‘rectification’.

You then go on to address our desire for ‘Associate citizenship’ saying this will place us in an untenable situation because we “would live in Britain while subjecting themselves to a foreign state”. Obviously, you have an issue with ‘subjection’ but setting that to one side, I have to ask, why? Doesn’t the UK, for example, accept dual nationality?

If people are defined and marked by their culture as right-wing parties such as yours seem to postulate, what about people like me, the child of an English mother and a Spanish father, who grew up in England and in Spain, belongs to both cultures and speaks both languages, am I ‘untenable’?

What about the citizens of Northern Ireland? It was agreed as part of the peace process that they would be able to take up Irish citizenship in addition to British and many of them are doing so, right now.

Are the British/German daughters of your former party leader, Mr Farage, ‘untenable’, is their nationality position ‘nonsense’?

Are you yourself ‘untenable’? Your party despises the EU and yet you stood for its Parliament, you were elected, you represent people from the UK there…. You are paid remuneration from the EU, aren’t you? You claim expenses? You will receive a very generous pension as a result of your tenure in the EU parliament? Are you ‘untenable’ Mr Agnew, or simply a good old garden grown hypocrite?

So, in order to be consistent, if you are going to argue that having dual British/EU citizenship rights in untenable nonsense, wouldn’t you have to strip dual nationality from all British citizens, including the wife and daughters of your former leader Mr. Nigel Farage, Mr Boris Johnson and the entire population of Northern Ireland?

Sorry, EU citizenship rights to me are something real and enforceable and I and many others are not prepared to be forcibly stripped of them by ideologues such as yourself without a bloody good fight. I am sure you can understand that. Paltry offers of possible ‘visa free travel’ are a very poor second best.

Let’s also disagree on ‘uncontrolled mass immigration’ shall we, your little bogeyman, blaming years of UK government underinvestment in infrastructure and services on immigrants is one of the oldest tricks in the demagogue’s copybook.

I was admitted to hospital in Watford on Boxing day and was kept in for a few days, while I was there I indeed saw and spoke to many foreigners, Spaniards, Romanians, Fillipinos, Africans as well as British nationals... But most of them were highly-qualified medical personnel actually looking after me, helping me get back on my feet. Even my female consultant was Polish.

So I thank you for your letter, which was indeed, as you say, ‘honest’ from a certain point of view.

Pity it was so full of the usual untruths used to justify brexit.

Kind regards

Clariana

LET’S NOT BE COY

HAD we but world enough, and time,

This coyness, Lady, were no crime

Thus starts one of the most beautiful poems in English language. The poet longs to make love to his mistress but she is resisting him. In the following lines he goes on to describe how they could spend their time together, he in devout adoration of every part of her body and she as the gracious recipient of that admiration.

However halfway through comes the crunch point:

But at my back I always hear

Time's wingèd chariot hurrying near;

And yonder all before us lie

Deserts of vast eternity.

And he goes on to point out that in fact they don’t have a lot of time, they are mortal life is short, particularly in 16^th century, and they only have the moment in which to satisfy each other.

Why am I talking about a love poem on a political group? [I originally published this on The 48% Facebook group, go there if you support REMAIN, you will find good friends]. Because regarding brexit we are faced with the same dilemma, it would be wonderful to take eons of time to be extremely civilised to hold bake offs and carry out postcard campaigns, pester MPs and attend peaceful protests…

But you know what? Time is running out.

Our PM has said clearly that she intends to activate article 50 before 31 March 2017. That gives us barely FOUR MONTHS, 16 weeks if you prefer.

Most schools of thought seem to think that article 50 is actually irreversible, in which case folks, 16 weeks and it’s up, done, dusted.

And here we are still dillydallying. Yes, there have been two massive peaceful protests in London and several more throughout the country and their impact has been… NOTHING, absolutely bloody nothing.

I’m reminded of the old feminists saw, “good girls come… Nowhere”, and this is very much our dilemma. We are civilised, educated, peaceful and law-abiding, and our opponents use every one of those traits against us. In fact, they deride us for them, calling us lily-livered or champagne socialists…

It’s time to get moving. Now or never. Do or dare.

Okay so we’re not into violence were not street thugs but fucks sake let’s do something… Something lawful but outrageous and scandalous that will get us noticed. Or they will bury us, for at least a few decades.

The grave 's a fine and private place,

But none, I think, do there embrace.

And think about it… In a few years’ time, when our kids, or our nephews and nieces, or grandchildren ask us “what did you do about brexit?” What will we say, I wrote a few postcards? Sounds a bit lame.

Let us roll all our strength and all

Our sweetness up into one ball,

And tear our pleasures with rough strife

Thorough the iron gates of life:

Thus, though we cannot make our sun

Stand still, yet we will make him run.

Let’s give the bastards a run for their money.

Ideas please…

Interpreting Brexit:

The UK EU referendum result and current government policy

The question on the UK referendum ballot paper was "Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

There was no mention of immigration on that paper, by making immigration a key point, in fact, a non-negotiable point, Theresa May is interpreting the answer but she lacks a mandate from the referendum to do so.

This is a pretty crucial legal/political issue... If I asked you "Do you want the blue one or the pink one?" and you replied "the blue one", it would be illegitimate for me to extrapolate from that that you also didn't want the yellow one...

It is pushing the limits of a mandate and sets a highly dangerous precedent, because it means fundamentally that I can ask you any "either or" question I wish but interpret your reply as meaning anything I want it to. In other words, a government can do just what PM May is currently doing, and take any measures they wish using a flimsy, badly thought out, closely run consultation process to justify their actions, bypassing any checks or balances. As with children, governments need boundaries, and this one doesn't have them.

Neither Remainers nor Brexiters should stand for this. But Brexiters... Oh well, one day soon their heedless complaisance will come back and bite them on the bum...

Clariana

Like Exhibits in a Zoo: Investigation into the Association of Jimmy Savile with Stoke Mandeville Hospital

It seems entertainer Jimmy Savile was one of the most prolific abusers the United Kingdom has ever had the misfortune to know. I say "it seems" because he unfortunately passed away before he could be bought to justice. However, the evidence we now have based on the statements of those he abused seems pretty overwhelming. To those readers who wish to improve their background knowledge of this twisted and sick personality and the historical context which enabled him, I would heartily recommend the following recently published biography: http://www.amazon.co.uk/Plain-Sight-Life-Jimmy-Savile/dp/1782067434/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1425028465&sr=1-1&keywords=jimmy+saville

Though not scatological in any of its descriptions, the book does not pull any punches when it comes to exposing the details and the social, economic, historical and political circumstances in which his abusive activity took place.

I write this because yesterday saw the publication of the official report into Savile's activities at Stoke Mandeville hospital. It can be found at: http://www.speakingoutinvestigation.com/Downloads/Speaking%20out%20investigation/2902210_Investigation%20into%20the%20Association%20of%20Jimmy%20Savile%20with%20Stoke%20Mandeville%20Hospital.pdf

From the report it would seem that the British invited evil into the place where we tend to our most vulnerable and allowed it to run rampant there... All because we decided we did not wish to properly finance these services collectively and instead rely on the 'charity' of private individuals.

The words of 30 year-old victim 51 are particularly relevant:

Victim 51 recalls not wanting to rock the boat as she knew being at Stoke Mandeville was a privilege and she was worried she would be asked to
leave if she said bad things about Savile. She recalls Stoke Mandeville being very different from other hospitals, for example, the sheets were canary yellow and the reception looked more like “somebody’s psychedelic house” everyone was aware how lucky they were to be treated there.
Victim 51 recalls that Savile would often take groups of VIPs around the ward and that the patients did not like this feeling that they were exhibits in a zoo.

So some patients in our public service health system were receiving better treatment than others and were made painfully aware of this. The price they had to pay was their dignity, because like those aristocrats whose idea of a good time was to drop in to the old asylum of Bethlehem to see the sick, the insane and the delusional cavorting in their chains, as so powerfully portrayed by Hogarth, the well-off and powerful today still derive that same vicarious enjoyment from contemplating the misery of those less fortunate than themselves. Savile of course, the master enabler, knew precisely how to pander to these degraded and degrading impulses.

Hogarth, A Rake's Progress, painting number 8.

But perhaps the most disturbing aspect to arise from this report is that in the course of the investigation three further abusers were detected, whose victims were the same vulnerable patients, were active within the hospital over the same period, one of whom was recently sent to prison for 11 years for abusing several children in his care. It is not yet known whether any of these doctors (yes, you read right, they were all, unlike Savile, medically qualified), had any links with Savile and what these might be.

This is abuse and corruption, this is what happens when charity takes the place of proper funding. We should learn from this, but I doubt we will. We should expect more of this as our health services are relentlessly privatised.

Tracey v Cambridge University Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust and Others: A Patient's Right to be consulted

The rights of patients in the UK today are horrifyingly limited but at least the court recognised here that they should be consulted when their medical team presumes to take life or death decisions on their future healthcare.

Although, it could, and has, give rise to endless debate, the merits of whether or not to undertake CPR (cardio-pulmonary resuscitation) was not the main issue in this case. The crux of the judgment is that Mrs Janet Tracey, who although very sick (she was badly injured in a car crash and had been diagnosed with a terminal brain tumour), was fully aware and cognisant was not consulted or involved in the decision making process when a Do Not Resuscitate (DNR) order was placed in her file by her doctors. And, by the way, neither was any other member of her close family who were almost constantly at her bedside.

Doctors in the UK are treated like minor deities. They are a scarce resource, if not always well paid. Most of them, I know from personal experience, are approachable, humane and decent, some, however are arrogant and overbearing and not a few are woefully ignorant about ethics and the rights of those in their care. Needless to say the courts almost always bend over backwards to accommodate them. But in this case judge recognised that they may have gone too far:

There is nothing in the medical/nursing records which suggests any agreement to DNACPR by Mrs Tracey...  If Dr L. had such a conversation, it would have been of importance to note the same both on the DNACPR Notice and in the medical records. I am unable to accept that the absence of such a note is a result of no more than poor record keeping.

(emphasis mine) 

And, even more damningly:

I am unable to accept Dr L’s evidence that he spoke to Mrs Tracey about resuscitation prior to the implementation of the first DNACPR Notice.

So god 0, patient 1, then; perhaps this is a good beginning, the recognition that a doctor does not have the right to unilaterally take a decision on the patient's behalf if the patient or their family are capable, they must and should be involved in the decision making process.

Don't get me wrong, It is completely understandable that many people would rather delegate full decision making responsibility to their medical team, that is their choice. However, not all of us feel the same, and it should never be forgotten that in any civilized society the patient's decision as to their level of involvement must always be respected. 

In my view, further progress needs to be made we should be moving towards a position where the doctor needs to obtain the patient's consent to make such a decision in the first place, hopefully, Mrs Tracey's case is a first step in that direction.

Thalidomide: Long Shadows

My mother had a stillbirth, two years before me, in 1961, it was her first pregnancy and she suffered horribly from morning sickness her GP gave her some meds for it... That's right, thalidomide, my elder sister died in utero and my mother had to bear her full term knowing she was dead. She was born deformed and the midwife informed my mother of her sex.

It's fair to say that my mother has always been defensive towards me, I used to interpret it as coldness. My father on the other hand cherished me. My two brothers were equally loved.  

I guess since they were born after me and male they didn't come with the baggage I did she could let down her guard a little and be the mother she really wanted to be and was.

Much later on when I had a serious illness my mother phoned from abroad "If you want, Tony (her partner) and I can come and stay with you".  Basically I told her not to bother. If my father had been alive, I knew, he wouldn't even have asked, just jumped on the first plane.

Once I was better I talked this thing over with a psych and basically gave her the reading I made of the situation above.  Psyche's response was "You should be doing this job..."

We get on all right nowadays.  We are mostly civil to each other, but our relationship will always be fraught. We live in different countries, Tony and my husband act as intermediaries and very good they are at it, too.

So yes, these things do overshadow the living to some extent, but hey, that's life.