Sir – British EU critics comprise two broad categories: the economically anxious group; and the historically conscious group apprehensive of newcomers. Views shared by a rainbow of political mavens.

The first group examine things like trade cycles, financial controls and redistribution, which offer some sense; the historically conscious second group emphasise multicultural dangers to Britain. Both probably conceal more ominous views.

Debate focuses on institutions like ECB, European Court on Justice, Brussels bureaucracy, and sovereignty. Unlike reformers, ardent EU supporters tend to ignore problems because, presumably, possession remains their paramount aim; neither supporters nor reformers fully comprehend national sentiments throughout Europe, or global jihad which could prove terminal.

Until 1945, British justice and independence were widely taken for granted. After a hastily formed post-Second World War United Nations adopted a Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) immense power passed to shadowy figures advocating global control, the results of which are now dangers to Britain and Europe.

Within United Nations ambit developing nations repeatedly fell victim to ‘persuasion’ by representatives of strong nations; and such measures, quite naturally, coincide with values of super-rich power brokers, whose astute officials deceive poor nations sufficiently to access and control their natural resources. Poor nations achieve some improvement, then standards decline due to uncontrolled birth-rates leading to wholesale migrations.

Increasing migrations to rich countries produce incoherent societies where governments, employers, political aspirants, and ideologues advocating selective free speech, legislate to ensure absolute compliance, which breeds underlying dissension, suspicion and disruption. The foregoing has led to abasement of native populations, and curtailment of free expression. Resultant pressures on middle sections of society mean it is no surprise the British Future think tank recently discovered further hostility to immigration, which may bode well for an in-step party in 2015.

Hopefully this broad-brush depiction – allowing for any thoughtless transgressions – will engender discussion.

Stephen Ward
Oxford