PLEASE keep your letters to 250 words maximum giving your name, address and daytime telephone number - even on emails. Email: Write: Swindon Advertiser, Unit 1 and 2 Richmond House, Edison Park, Swindon, SN3 3RB. Phone: 01793 501806.

Anonymity is granted only at the discretion of the editor, who also reserves the right to edit letters.

No appetite for Iran war

Steve Halden’s outline of the origins of the current crisis around the seizure of oil tankers in the Middle East is halfway right.

Britain’s seizure of Iranian tanker Grace 1 certainly and inevitably led to Iran’s reciprocal seizure. Putting this dangerous escalation down to either side of the Brexit argument though is off the mark.

The crisis marks an escalating war drive by sections of the Trump administration in the US. Today ordinary Iranians are suffering under crippling sanctions imposed by the USA.

Iran has never invaded any other country but has suffered a long history of interference from the West.

Britain was involved in the coup which overthrew the democratically elected government in 1953, replacing it with a brutal dictator.

The West encouraged and supported Saddam Hussein’s attack on Iran in the 1980s. Most recently the US tore up an international agreement with Iran, the JCPOA, against the wishes of every other government, for bogus reasons.

Repeated defence estimates by US security forces and others have confirmed, in repeated official reports, there is no Iranian nuclear weapons programme. No serious analyst believes there is such a programme.

Monitors have access to Iran’s facilities they are not allowed in the USA or Israel. Crazies like Pompeo and Bolton are pushing Trump for war for reasons of American imperial power and control of oil markets.

Should this happen we are likely to be sucked in by whichever of the supine characters a handful of Tories have chosen as Prime minister. Unless we oppose it.

Peter Smith, Woodside Avenue, Swindon

A majority is a majority

Steve Rouse once gain articulates a very reasonable view on the issue of a no deal Brexit (SA 24 July).

However, it was Parliament which rejected the Withdrawal Deal (not once but three times) as negotiated by Mrs May and the EU; a deal which the EU claim is the only one on the table.

Given that the EU has explicitly ruled out any re-negotiation it seems that a state of stasis has been arrived at.

To my fellow correspondent I would say Parliamentary democracy has been allowed to work and the result is non acceptance of the negotiated deal which bring us to the big question as to what happens next.

The default position on a no deal position is also quite clear. The UK Parliament, after 272 hours of debate, voted for the Withdrawal Bill which set out the legal position with regard to what happens in the event of a no deal scenario.

The terms of the Bill means that under British law and Article 50 of the European Union treaty, Britain will leave the EU on October 31st. with or without a deal.

There is a view held by some that Parliament must be sovereign in the decision making process in the country, and that as a Brexiteer I campaigned to leave on the basis of the UK Parliament being sovereign.

However, I also wish the Government to respect an assurance and a promise they made to the people of this country. The assurance they gave was that continued membership of the EU was a decision for the people to make; in fact what the Government said was “The referendum on Thursday, 23rd June is your chance to decide if we should remain in or leave the European Union.”

The promise made by the Government was equally clear and unambiguous – “This is your decision. The Government will implement what you decide.”

Steve cites the CBI and businesses, Trade Unions and other worthy bodies as opposing a no deal Brexit, to which I would say that the people heard from all of these organisations in 2016 and despite the scare stories being exactly the same then as now, chose to ignore them and vote to leave.

Some writers suggest the majority wasn’t sufficient to be valid to which I would refer them to the most recent elections which took place in the EU when the best candidate of the one proposed was appointed the next President of the Commission.

Despite receiving only 52 per cent of the vote she declared “A majority is a majority”.

Des Morgan, Caraway Drive, Swindon

Brexit means freedom

Not a single contributor to ‘What you said’, (SA July 23) mentioned the reason for the referendum, which was taking control of our country.

Nothing to do with trade etc. Brought about by the stream of migrants being encouraged to cross The Channel, despite the E.U. law ‘First country of entry’.

Two wars were fought to prevent the subjugation of other countries by the one. Yet the Remainers are happy for the reverse to be true i:e one country to be subjugated by 27 others!

If you do not comprehend ask your MP what control the House of Commons has over any/every law passed by Europe – zilch!

Disruption to trade is fairly certain but you can rely on Big Business not to allow any serious long term effect, whichever side of The Channel they trade.


Brian Bradbury-Pratt, Parsonage Court, Highworth

Letters to the Editor: What do you think?

Do you have an opinion on our reader letters? Get in touch.

Add your contribution now By uploading a contribution, for use online and in print, you accept our contributor terms. You will either own or have permission to use anything you provide.